ŞE

BN

EM

KU

RT

2018

RAISING EFL LEARNERS’ AWARENESS OF

SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES AS AN AID TO

UNDERSTANDING IMPLICATURES

A MASTER’S THESIS

BY

ŞEBNEM KURT

TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BILKENT UNIVERSITY

ANKARA

JUNE 2018

Raising EFL Learners’ Awareness of Suprasegmental Features as an Aid to

Understanding Implicatures

The Graduate School of Education

of

İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University

by

Şebnem Kurt

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in

Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Ankara

June 2018

İHSAN DOĞRAMACI BILKENT UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

Thesis Title: Raising EFL Learners’ Awareness of Suprasegmental Features as an Aid to

Understanding Implicatures

Şebnem Kurt

June 2018

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and

in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign

Language.

----------------------------

Asst. Prof. Dr. Deniz Ortaçtepe (Supervisor)

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and

in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign

Language.

----------------------------

Asst. Prof. Dr. Patrick Hart (Examining Committee Member)

Approval of the Graduate School of Education

----------------------------

Prof. Julie Matthews Aydinli, ASBÜ (Examining Committee Member)

I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope and

in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign

Language.

----------------------------

Prof. Dr. Alipaşa Ayas (Director)

iii

ABSTRACT

RAISING EFL LEARNERS’ AWARENESS OF SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES

AS AN AID TO UNDERSTANDING IMPLICATURES

Şebnem KURT

M.A., Program of Teaching English as a Foreign Language

Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Deniz Ortaçtepe

June 2018

This study investigated the effects of raising EFL learners’ awareness of suprasegmental

features as an aid to understanding implicatures. This quantitative method study was

conducted with thirty-six EFL learners studying at Akdeniz University, School of

Foreign Languages. Ten explicit sugrasegmental treatment sessions were implemented

over a course of ten weeks. The data were collected through three different instruments:

a background and attitudes questionnaire, implicature recognition pre-test and post-test

and evaluation forms at the end of each treatment session. The findings obtained through

the analysis of the data revealed that receiving explicit training on suprasegmetal

features had a statistically significant effect on learners’ recognition of implicatures in

aural messages. On the other hand, data obtained from the evaluation forms suggest that

the learners had positive attitudes towards the use of suprasegmental features to

understand and interpret implicatures. Most of the learners found the treatment sessions

useful in terms of improving their pronunciation perception and using pronunciation to

understand discourse. Additionally, the findings obtained from the open-ended question

in the evaluation forms showed that the treatment sessions were also found effective in

terms of improving the learners’ perceptions of their speaking skills, as well as helping

them to develop confidence about their English pronunciation. Finally, the results

iv

suggest that the learners strongly support the implementation of regular pronunciation

training into the school curriculum as a way of increasing their pronunciation and

discourse competence. Considering these results, this study provided further directions

in the use of pronunciation to foster the recognition of implied meanings in EFL context.

Keywords: Pronunciation, suprasegmentals, implicatures, intended meaning.

v

ÖZET

Mesajlarda İma Edilen Anlamı Anlamak İçin Suprasegmental Bilinci Yükseltmek

Şebnem Kurt

Yüksek Lisans, Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce Öğretimi

Tez Yöneticisi: Dr. Öğr. Üyesi Deniz Ortactepe

Haziran, 2018

Bu calışma, telaffuzun suprasegmentel özelliklerini doğrudan öğretmenin İngilizceyi

yabancı dil olarak öğrenen öğrencilerin sözlü mesajlardaki gizli anlamları anlamaları

üzerine bir etkisi olup olmadığını incelemektedir. Bu nicel yöntemli çalışma, Akdeniz

Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Yüksek Okulunda okumakta olan otuz altı öğrenci ile

yürütülmüştür. On haftalık süre boyunca öğrencilere on adet doğrudan suprasegmentel

özellikler öğretme seansı verilmiştir. Çalışma ile ilgili veriler, üç farklı ölçme aracı ile

toplanmıştır; telaffuz geçmişi ve telaffuza tutum anketi, ima edilmiş mesajları anlama ön

ve son testi ve son olarak değerlendirme formlari aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Anketten

alınan veriler, çalışmaya katılan öğrencilerin bir telaffuz öğrenme/ pratik etme

geçmişlerinin olmadığını ve telaffuza karşı da net olmayan tutumlar sergilediklerini

göstermiştir. Yapılan ön ve son testler arasında istatistiksel açıdan önemli bir fark

saptanması, verilen doğrudan eğitim seanslarının öğrenciler üzerinde olumlu bir

etkisinin olduğuna işarettir. Değerlendirme formlarından alınan bulgular ise öğrencilerin

doğrudan öğretme seanslarina karşı pozitif tutumlarının olduğunu göstermektedir.

Öğrencilerin çoğu seanslari ilgi çekici, merak uyandıran ve eğlenceli bulmuşlardır.

Ayrıca değerlendirme formundaki açık uçlu sorudan elde edilen verilere göre öğrenciler

bu seanslar sayesinde konuşma becerilerine yönelik sahip oldukları algıyı

geliştirdiklerini ve İngilizce telaffuza karşı özgüvenlerinin arttığını belirtmişlerdir. Son

olarak, öğrenciler hem İnglizce telaffuz, hem de söylem (discourse) farkındalıklarını

vi

arttırmasından dolayı, çalışmada yürütülen doğrudan telaffuz öğretme seanslarına benzer

eğitimlerin İngilizce Hazırlık Programında daha fazla olmasını kesinlikle istediklerini

beyan etmişlerdir. Bu sonuçlar göz önünde bulundurulduğunda, bu çalışma telaffuzun

sözlü mesajlardaki ima edilen anlamı anlamaya yardımına yeni bir bakış açısı

getirmiştir.

Anahtar kelimeler: telaffuz, suprasegmental ozellikler, ima edilen anlam, kastedilen

anlam

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. III

ÖZET .............................................................................................................................................V

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ VII

LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................X

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... XI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

Background Of The Study ............................................................................................................. 2

Statement Of The Problem ............................................................................................................. 5

Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 7

Significance Of The Study ............................................................................................................. 7

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 9

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9

English Pronunciation .................................................................................................................... 9

Segmental Features (Phonemes) .............................................................................................. 11

Suprasegmental Features ......................................................................................................... 12

Intonation, pitch and stress in English ................................................................................................................ 14

Pronunciation Teaching Around the World ............................................................................. 17

Pronunciation Studies in Turkey ............................................................................................. 18

Implicatures ............................................................................................................................. 20

Implicatures in English as a Foreign Language ....................................................................... 23

Implicature Studies in Turkey ................................................................................................. 25

viii

Fostering the Comprehension of Implicatures by Teaching Suprasegmentals ........................ 25

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 28

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 28

Setting .............................................................................................................................. 28

Participants ....................................................................................................................... 30

Materials and Instruments ................................................................................................ 30

Pronunciation Background and Attitude Questionnaire (PBAQ) ............................................ 31

The Implicature Recognition Test ........................................................................................... 31

Explicit Teaching of Suprasegmental Features ....................................................................... 32

Segmental training ........................................................................................................................................................ 32

Introduction of Stress, Pitch, and Intonation .................................................................................................... 33

Evaluation Form ...................................................................................................................... 34

Implicature Recognition Post- test........................................................................................... 35

Data Collection Procedures .......................................................................................................... 36

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 39

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 41

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 41

Results .......................................................................................................................................... 42

Learners’ Pronunciation Background and Attitudes ................................................................ 42

Learners’ Recognition of Implicatures in Aural Messages Before and After The Explicit

Teaching of Suprasegmentals .................................................................................................. 44

Perceptions about the Treatment Sessions During the Intervention Period ............................. 54

Likert-scale items. ......................................................................................................................................................... 54

ix

Open-ended question. ................................................................................................................................................. 56

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 58

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 59

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 59

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 59

Learners’ Background in and Attitudes towards Pronunciation Before the Study .................. 59

Learners’ Recognition of Implicatures in Aural Messages before and after the Explicit

Teaching of Suprasegmentals .................................................................................................. 63

Learners’ Perceptions about the Treatment Sessions .............................................................. 66

Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................................................. 69

Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 71

Suggestions For Further Research ............................................................................................... 72

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 72

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 74

APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 86

APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 90

APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................................. 96

APPENDIX D .............................................................................................................................. 97

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Frequency Distribution of Pronunciation Background and Attitudes

Questionnaire………………………………………………………………………42

2 Results of Normality Test…………………………………………………………..45

3 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test Results (N=38)…………………46

4 Frequency Distribution of Second Part of Post-test (N=38)………………………….51

5 Wilcoxon Test Results, Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………53

6 Difference Between Pre-test & Post-test ………………………………………….54

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Evaluation Form Item 1 Results ................................................................................. 55

2 Evaluation Form Item 5 Results ................................................................................. 56

3 Evaluation Form Item 6 Results ................................................................................. 56

4 Overall Assessment of Evaluation Forms ................................................................... 57

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Pronunciation teaching has been shaped and reshaped many times to fit different

purposes in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language

(EFL) contexts over the course of time. Changing trends and methods in the area, each

and all, have left their unique effects on pronunciation and its role in the foreign

language classroom. There have been times when pronunciation was ignored entirely,

times when it only meant imitation, and also when only one aspect of it was worshipped

and others were eliminated. Teaching pronunciation, as suggested by McDonough and

Shaw (2003), involves focusing on the sounds of the language, which are called as

segmental features, as well as stress, rhythm, intonation, and links, which are called as

suprasegmental features. Crystal (2003) described suprasegmentals as vocal effects

extending over more than one sound segment in an utterance, such as a pitch, stress or

juncture pattern.

Suprasegmental features have a vital importance in spoken English, as displayed

in the studies of O’Neal (2010) and Ladefoged and Johnson (2010), due to the fact that

they have a direct effect on a speaker’s intelligibility, which might be referred as the

mutual understanding of the interlocutors. Gilbert (1987) referred to suprasegmentals as

‘music of the language’ and further claimed that since these musical patterns are

unconsciously transferred to a new language, it is difficult for most second language

learners to realize that they are speaking the new language with the music of the old

language, which in fact, often results in severe loss of comprehensibility.

Misunderstanding in written messages is not something unheard of. This is

largely attributed to the fact that because of a lack of face-to face conversation, some

important points in the message might be overshadowed. Face-to-face interaction, in that

2

sense, not only enables the observation of facial expressions but also contains the

intonation of the speaker, which is one of the major suprasegmental features of speech,

and which helps in the appropriately distribution of the message, in addition to giving

clues about the intended meanings of the speaker.

These intended meanings might be referred to as implied meanings or

implicatures. Implicatures are deeply related to pragmatic comprehension, which does

not usually occupy the front row in foreign language teaching. However, a strong grasp

of these items indicates exquisite language skills, which makes them considerably

appealing for language teachers. In this respect, there have been heated debates over

whether to teach them implicitly or explicitly, as well as whether or not they should or

could be taught in foreign language classrooms at all. While some studies underline the

fact that teaching of pragmatic inferential skills is an under-researched area (Taguchi,

2005), some other studies indicate a positive attitude towards the explicit teaching of

implicatures (Bouton, 1992; Bouton, 1994b).

According to the works of Kartunnen (1976), Karttunen and Peters (1979), and

Rooth (1985, 1992) on Alternative Semantics, as cited in Steedman (2002), intonation

helps to signal the difference between what the speaker actually said and what s/he

might be expected to say in the context at hand, therefore, serving the interpretation

purposes of the discourse. This obviously demonstrates the importance of

suprasegmental cues for the comprehension of implicatures and vice and versa.

Therefore, this study aims to explore the effects of explicit suprasegmental instruction

on Turkish EFL learners’ understanding of implicatures.

Background of the Study

Communication is definitely more than words being exchanged. It is like a living

organism, constantly changing and evolving from the moment it starts. While words

make up the concrete basis for the conversation, facial expressions, body language, and

3

the use of suprasegmental phonology (the use of intonation, pitch, juncture, stress) are

all important figures, which give the conversation its soul: meaning. However, the story

does not end here. When meaning is involved, a whole new level of perception comes to

life; direct meaning or indirect meaning, literal meaning or figurative meaning? Direct

and literal meanings in languages are a lot easier to comprehend compared to indirect

and figurative meanings, which require a hearer or a reader to have some pragmatic

knowledge in addition to some other curial variables such as, cultural background,

knowledge of the world, and schemata.

The term implicature has been in the foreign language-teaching arena since its

introduction by Grice (1975). As cited by Bottyan (n.d.), implicatures are ways to

explain the perceptive difference between what is expressed literally in a sentence and

what is indicated or implied. There are two types of implicatures; conventional and

conversational implicatures. Conventional implicatures are independent of what is said

(Grice, 1975), whereas conversational implicatures are what the speaker implies in a

conversation rather than what s/he actually articulates. For the purposes of this study, the

focus will be on conversational implicatures rather than conventional implicatures since

they tend to carry intentions or rather intended meanings of the speakers.

The studies on implicatures are mostly for the purposes of pragmatics. Broersma

(1994) investigated the possibilities of explicitly teaching implicatures to ESL learners,

using cartoons and comic strips as well as conventional teaching materials. Kubota

(1995), again from a pragmatic point of view, examined the teaching of conversational

implicatures to Japanese EFL learners, using multiple choice, and sentence combining

tests. In an earlier study, Bouton (1988) examined international students’ use of

implicatures without explicit teaching. In another one of his studies, Bouton (1992)

investigated whether or not living in the United States and communicating daily in

English provided students of English as a Second Language (ESL) with skills in

interpreting implicature. However, not many studies looked at the relationship between

4

implicatures and suprasegmental features, two terms, which are naturally intertwined in

a way that suprasegmental cues provide clues about the hidden meanings in oral

communication.

The suprasegmental level of speech, also called as ‘prosody’, is a broad term,

which includes patterns of pitch, timing (duration and pause), and loudness (Cutler,

Dahan, & van Donselaar, 1997). Prosody plays a crucial role in language comprehension

due to the fact that it provides important information, including grammatical boundaries,

discourse functions, emotional intent of the speaker, and regulation of conversational

turn-taking (Chun, 1988; Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990; Wennerstrom, 1994) at

both local (utterance) and global (discourse) levels (Cutler et al., 1997; Grosz & Sidner,

1986). Awareness of this crucial role has resulted in many studies where the focus was

on the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features (e. g., Derwing, Munro & Wiebe,

1997). These studies mostly highlight the importance of suprasegmentals for fluency,

accentedness, and intelligibility purposes (Derwing, 2008; Derwing & Munro, 2005;

Levis, 2005). Additionally, there are some studies, which deal with both, segmental and

suprasegmental features, and compare these two in terms of their impact on L2 learners’

pronunciation (e.g., Anderson-Hsieh & Koehler, 1988; Cardoso, 2011; Couper, 2006;

Elliott, 1997; Saito, 2011)

Identifying implicatures requires not only contextual background but also

cultural knowledge as well, both of which might be difficult to handle in an EFL context

due to a lack of sufficient authentic target language exposure. Awareness of

suprasegmental cues might assist in identifying speaker intentions since intonation, pitch

level and the use of stress could provide clues about what the speaker implies as opposed

to what s/he actually says. Chun (1988) asserts that suprasegmentals contribute a great

deal to the learners’ sociolinguistic competence since they assist in interpreting

utterances. In his book English Phonetics and Phonology- A practical Course, Roach

(1983) acknowledges that one function of intonation is that it enables people to express

5

emotions and attitudes as they speak, which adds a special kind of ‘meaning’ to spoken

language. He further refers to this as the attitudinal function of intonation.

In a similar vein, Spaii and Hermes (1993) assert that pitch variations are

important components of suprasegmentals, both for distinguishing the speaker’s

intention, and for identifying non-linguistic tasks such as emotions, social status, and

personalities. In her study which focused on a comparison between English and Spanish

speakers in terms of their comprehension and production of intonation, Fariah (2013)

emphasized that most of the time for non-native speakers of English, not being aware of

the different kinds of pitch in the speech acts, can lead to misunderstandings, leading the

listener to perceive spoken words in a very different way from the real intention of the

speaker.

In light of these findings, it is clear that there is a strong connection between

identifying implicatures and recognizing suprasegmental cues. Although some studies

explored the connections between listening comprehension skills and their effects on

comprehending implicatures (Alagozlu& Buyukozturk, 2009; Taguchi, 2008), there is

still a need to explore how English suprasegmentals influence L2 learners’

understanding implicatures.

Statement of the Problem

The status of suprasegmentals has been strengthened with the latest focus on

intelligibility and comprehensibility issues in foreign language teaching (Jenkins, 2008).

As a result of this new popularity, the number of studies conducted on suprasegmentals

has increased (e.g., Breitkreutz, Derwing and Rossiter, 2002; Burgess & Spencer, 2000;

MacDonald, 2002). However, these studies mostly focus on accentedness, fluency, and

their superiority over segmentals in terms of intelligibility issues (e.g., Avery & Ehrlich,

1992; Derwing & Rossiter, 2003; Missaglia,1999; Morley, 1991), neglecting their

significance in terms of understanding and intrepreting implicatures.

6

Studies on implicatures center on pragmatic comprehension (Bouton, 1992,

1994b; Carrell, 1981, 1984; Kasper, 1984; Koike, 1996; Taguchi, 2002; Takahashi &

Roitblat, 1994; Ying, 1996, 2001), the speed rate of comprehension and a link between

this rate and linguistic competence, and their teachability issues (Bouton, 1994a, 1999;

Kubota, 1995). Some studies underscored the role of explicit instruction on EFL

learners’ interpretation of implicatures in (e.g., Bouton, 1994a, 1994b; Kasper & Rose,

2002), while others focused on the ability of ESL learners in general to comprehend

implicatures (e.g., Taguchi, 2005). Furthermore, some other studies concentrated only

on high proficiency level learners’ interpretations of implicatures (e.g., Lee, 2002).

The focal point in English pronunciation studies in Turkey is limited to

segmental phonology (e.g., Atli& Bergil, 2012; Geylanioglu & Dikilitas, 2012;

Kayaoglu & Caylak, 2011; Seferoglu, 2005). The studies that focused on

suprasegmentals are relatively few (e. g., Demirezen, 2015) and they intensively

examined the perception and the production of suprasegmentals for the purposes of

pronunciation in general (e. g., Demirezen, 2015; Hismanoglu & Hismanoglu, 2013 ).

Furthermore, the findings of these studies revealed significant problems that Turkish

EFL learners have in English pronunciation, not only on segmental but also on

suprasegmental level.

In terms of implicatures, there are a few studies, which examined the relation

between listening skills and understanding implicatures (Alagozlu & Buyukozturk,

2009; Alagozlu, 2013). However, to the knowledge of the researcher, there are no

studies that have yet looked at the effects of recognizing English suprasegmentals in the

comprehension of implicatutes in Turkish EFL context. Thesis Statement: This study

will investigate the effects of explicit teaching of suprasegmentals to promote tertiary

level Turkish EFL learners’interpretation of implicatures.

7

Research Questions

1. What was the learners’ background in and attitudes toward pronunciation before

the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features?

2. To what extent do Turkish EFL learners recognize implicatures in aural texts

before and after the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features?

3. What are the learners’ perceptions about the explicit teaching of suprasegmental

features?

Significance of the Study

Considering the crucial impacts of suprasegmental features of English and how

they affect the whole message by giving away what the speaker intends to say, they

ought be given the value they deserve in foreign language teaching. The association

between implicatures and suprasegmentals makes it clear that teaching them together

and explicitly in EFL classrooms will be immensely beneficial for learners. Although

this is not a new area of topic for ESL contexts, it is still an unexplored area for many

EFL contexts. The effects of explicit teaching of suprasegmentals on promoting the

comprehension and interpretation of implicatures are still open for inquiry in Turkey

EFL context.

Findings and results of this study might motivate EFL teachers in Turkey and

elsewhere to teach implicatures together with suprasegmental features in English as a

Foreign Language programs. Furthermore, they might also be inspired to go beyond

what the course books cover in terms of pronunciation instruction. Additionally, there

might arise a special motivation to include the explicit or implicit teaching of

implicatures in EFL classrooms, which might provide the learners the benefits of more

pragmatic and cultural awareness in the target language. Finally, curriculum designers

might benefit from the findings of this study by designing syllabuses that contain an

intertwined instruction of implicatures and suprasegmentals.

8

Conclusion

This chapter presented the background of the present study, the statement of the

problem, the research question, and the significance of the study. The next chapter will

introduce the review of the previous literature on Suprasegmentals and implicatures.

9

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter presents the review of the literature, relevant to the present study

that investigates the effects of explicit teaching of suprasegmentals to promote tertiary

level Turkish EFL learners’ interpretation of implicatures. The literature review is

intended to introduce English phonology, phonetics, and English pronunciation from a

broad perspective, before turning the focus on Suprasegmental feature of pronunciation,

and the importance of it for EFL classrooms. Pronunciation studies around the world and

specifically in Turkey are also reviewed, as well as the importance of teaching

pronunciation in language classrooms. Following the mentioned topics, implicatures are

discussed in relation to its definition, types, and their place in EFL. Finally, in what

ways improving learners’ suprasegmental pronunciation will have an effect on their

recognition of implicatures will be outlined.

English Pronunciation

Phonology, phonetics and pronunciation are terms that could easily be confused by

people who do not have familiarity with linguistics. Therefore, basic definitions of this

terminology will be provided in this chapter as an easy passage to more complex terms

such as suprasegmental and segmental Phonology. Starting off of a broader term,

phonology has been defined as the study of sounds within the realm of linguistics (Lass,

1984; Vigário, Frota, & Freitas, 2009). To differentiate it from phonetics, Lass (1984)

adds that his study is focused on the “function, behavior and the organization of sounds

as linguistic items” (p. 1), whereas phonetics is concerned with the mechanic production

of these sounds, making it a subcategory under the big phonology umbrella, which itself

goes under the largest title of linguistics. Daniel (2011) differentiates phonetics and

phonology by defining the first one as the physiological process of sound production,

10

while describing the latter as the study of “sound behavior in realization” (p. 2). Painting

a much larger and comprehensible linguistic picture, Lodge (2009) refers to phonology

as relating to the “differences of meaning signaled by sound” (p. 14). Collins and Mees

(2003) provide another broad definition by stating that “the study of the selection and

patterns of sounds in a single language” (p. 3) is phonology, whereas “the study of the

sounds in language in general is phonetics” (p. 3).

Pronunciation has always been considered a crucial element of oral communication

(Tanner, 2012; Linebaugh, & Roche, 2013; Suwartono, & Rafli, 2015). In describing

what pronunciation means, Hewings (2013) emphasizes the varieties of English, voicing

the fact that every single speaker might have a different pronunciation of English, even

across countries where it is the native language. In her book, the Phonology of English

as an International Language, Jenkins (2000) argues that the main linguistic difference

that one can observe between the language of native speakers of English, and people

who speak English as a foreign language is their pronunciation. Jenkins (2000) further

asserts that pronunciation is also a crucial aspect of language that could threaten

intelligibility. As stated by Field (2005), intelligibility is the main object of traditional

pronunciation teaching, and thus it should be further researched since the components of

what constitutes it, is still- to this date- not very well known. According to Behrman

(2014), intelligibility is the correctness of a speaker’s understandability. He further adds

that this understandability is judged by “the percentage of content words transcribed by

the listener” (Behrman, 2014, p. 547). Similarly, Boyer and Boyer (2001) draw attention

to the intelligibility factor in pronunciation, asserting that a student’s pronunciation

ought to be intelligible. Their description of intelligibility centers on being understood

without much hardship (Boyer & Boyer, 2001). Along the same line, Kenworty (1987)

points out that intelligibility relies immensely on the correct identification of greater

number of words by a listener.

11

Munro and Derwing (2006) emphasize the significance of pronunciation in a second

language and call the need for systematic pronunciation instruction in second language

classrooms. In a similar vein, Moyer (2007) intensifies the gravity of pronunciation in

learning a second language, focusing on age factor in acquiring it. By the same token,

Kenworthy (1987) reiterates the importance of age to begin to learn a language in order

not to have a foreign accent. However, she also asserts the fact that there is no clear

evidence between age and mastering in pronunciation in a new language (Kenworthy,

1987). The main features of pronunciation can be divided into two categories: segmental

and suprasegmental features (Kelly, 2000), which will now be explained in detail below.

Segmental Features (Phonemes)

The broadest definition of segments (or phonemes) is “the different sounds within a

language” (Kelly, 2000, p.1). Phonemes help to describe precisely the way each

individual sound is produced (Kelly, 2000). On a linguistically more technical note,

segmental features are described as the “vowels and consonants that form the nuclei and

boundaries of syllables” (Behrman, 2014, p. 547). Segmental comes from the word

segment, and in describing what a segment is, Kreidler (2004) commences with

discourse, referring to it as “any act of speech which occurs in a given place and during

a given period of time,” (p. 5) from discourse, he goes on to describe an utterance, since

a discourse includes at least one utterance, next he mentions a tone unit, as an utterance

includes at least one tone unit, after that comes the description of syllable, since a tone

unit includes at least one syllable, and finally, he states that a syllable includes at least

one segment. From all these connections, Kreidler (2004) concludes that speech might

be viewed as a composition of separate segments following each other.

12

Suprasegmental Features

Suprasegmentals are one of the two basic components of pronunciation, including

features like intonation, stress, and pitch. Along with segmentals (sounds), they make up

the core structure of speech. Crosby (2013) highlight the importance of suprasegmentals

by indicating the common saying “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it” (p. 4), thus

referring to the ‘how you say it’ part as suprasegmentals. He notes that while segmentals

are individual sound segments, suprasegmentals function above them, carrying

pragmatic meaning. To clarify this, Chun (2002) asserts that suprasegmentals features

such as pitch and rhythm go far beyond not only a single vowel or a consonant but also

to syllables, words, and even complete sentences. She also broadens the definition of

suprasegmentals by including such functions as nonlinguistic, extralinguistic,

paralinguistic, and linguistic in her definition (Chun, 2002). In regards to this,

Suwartono (2014) asserts that improving suprasegmentals is a way to improve

communication.

With the strong influences of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

approaches, the emphasis on pronunciation teaching has changed its direction from

overly stressing the segmentals to valuing the suprasegmentals for more communicative,

intelligible and comprehensible speech in foreign language classrooms (Derwing, 2009).

Regarding this, Levis and Grant (2003) assert that by their contributions to intelligibility,

suprasegmentals are also crucially important for the speaking skill due to their

association with discourse meaning and connected speech.

Suprasegmentals are crucially important for L2 learning. A number of studies have

looked at both perception and production of suprasegmentals by L2 learners.

Trofimovich and Baker (2006) explore the production of suprasegmentals, comparing

ESL learners and native speakers. The results of their study indicate a progress in

participants’ use of stress. As a major finding, they noted that suprasegmentals

13

contribute greatly to eliminating the foreign accent. In a similar study, Xiaoyao (2010)

examines how sensitive Mandarin EFL learners are to stress patterns, by asking the

participants to read given English words twice; first without the International Phonetic

Alphabet (IPA) stress marker [‘], and then again with the stress marker. Their scores

were compared with those of native speakers. Results revealed significant differences

between the two groups in terms of stress sensitiveness.

Levis (2007) examines the impacts of computer assisted pronunciation teaching

(CAPT) on learners’ development of suprasegmentals and found that improvements in

suprasegmentals triggered a higher recognition of segmentals, as well as promoting

learners’ lexical memory. Keeping instruction as their focus, Kurt, Medlin, and

Tessarolo (2014) look at the association between prosodically ambiguous intonation

patterns and learners’ degree of musical familiarity, obtaining results in the favor of

explicit instruction.

In spite of their significance for oral communication, and in spite of all the recent

encouragement from the findings and results of studies conducted on suprasegmentals,

still much needs to be done in language classrooms to enhance their teaching and

learning. Research suggests that it is relatively difficult for foreign language learners to

master the suprasegmentals in English (e.g., Mennen, & de Leeuw, 2014; Chen, 2013)

and that L1 interference might play a key role in this conundrum (e.g., Crosby, 2013;

Ortega-Llebaria & Colantoni, 2013; Tsurutani, 2011).

Although suprasegmentals have received more attention than segmentals from

researchers and teachers alike, there are cases, in which this attention does not match up

with the real situation. In his study, which examined the effects of segmental and

suprasegmental features on Malaysian TESL learners’ pronunciation, Rajadurai (2001)

finds that even though learners recognized the suprasegmetal features in the training, it

was harder for them to manipulate their use compared to segmental features, which the

14

learners found a lot easier to reproduce. This brings to light the broadness of

suprasegmentals and how it takes more time and effort compared to segmentals to learn

them.

Intonation, pitch and stress in English. Intonation, pitch and stress are all features

of suprasegmental phonology. In order to express intent, emotion, and inquisitiveness

(Crosby, 2013), these features are crucially important in a language. They are also

assigned a more critical role in the carrying of meaning, as opposed to segmental

features, which are constituted by individual sound segments.

Intonation. Intonation is the umbrella term, which covers stress, rhythm and

pitch. It plays a vital in all communication. Kurt, Medlin, and Tessarolo (2014)

underscore the importance of intonation in communication by stating the fact that in

English, meaning is not only conveyed through lexical preferences but also through

intonation. Similarly, Valenzuela Farias (2013) suggests that proper intonation enables

the messages to be communicated more accurately. In addition, Mennen (2007)

emphasizes that intonation is both helpful in conveying linguistic information and

organizing discourse.

Since intonation covers components such as stress and pitch, it has varying

functions while enabling a smoother communication. Roach (2010) describes four

functions of intonation in his book English Phonetics and Phonology- A Practical

Course. They are:

1. Attitudinal Function: expressing emotions and attitudes with the use of

intonation.

2. Accentual Function: assigning appropriate stress to words, and

syllables in a word.

3. Grammatical Function: recognition of grammar and syntactic

structures in spoken language.

15

4. Discourse Function: signaling to the listener new and/or given

information. (p. 146)

Intonation patterns can be described as either rising or falling, depending on the

type of sentence (Kurt, Medlin, & Tessarolo, 2014). Kurt, Medlin, and Tessarolo (2014)

note that while most questions in English are followed by rising intonation, wh questions

are followed by falling intonation. Native speakers are naturally equipped with this kind

of knowledge. However, L2 learners of English ought to be explicitly or implicitly

taught this intonation pattern so that they become more intelligible speakers in the target

language. Additionally, intonation also serves as an indicator of speakers’ emotions,

which helps to better interpret messages. In their study, Banziger and Scherer (2005)

propose that a speaker’s intonation is relatively affected by her/his emotional state,

which might provide the listener some cues about the speakers’ feelings and help to

better analyze the speech.

Pitch. Crosby (2013) refers to intonation as the pitch pattern in spoken language.

He further defines pitch as the fundamental frequency (F0), which refers to the rate of

vibrations of the vocal chords (Crosby, 2013). Valenzuela Farias (2013) notes that pitch,

which is an important component of intonation, helps to identify the intention of a

speaker in a conversation. She further elaborates on the different intensities of pitch

(low, mid, high), asserting that these provide additional hints about the different

intentions of speakers (Valenzuela Farias, 2013).

As an illustration, Valenzuela Farias (2013) clarifies that a question will be

indicated with a rising pitch, whereas a command will be accompanied with a lower

pitch. Chun (2002) describes pitch as the changing level or height of the sounds that are

produced in speech. She further notes that pitch is measured by how fundamental

frequency is distinguished by listeners, ranging from high to low, represented in the

form of the speech going up or down.

16

Tsurutani (2011) touches upon the difficulties of teaching and learning

suprasegmental features, including pitch, not only because of their abstract nature but

also because of the fact that most of the time they are not explicitly taught in language

classrooms. In a similar vein, Kurt, Medlin, and Tessarolo (2014) argue that intonation is

an under-researched area in L2 acquisition.

Stress. Roach (2010) expresses that stress occurs when speakers apply more

muscular energy, thus producing higher subglottal pressure, on syllables than is

normally used. He further added that stressed syllables tend to be more prominent than

unstressed syllables, and he goes on to list the characteristics that make a syllable more

prominent. They are as follows:

1. Stressed syllables are louder than unstressed.

2. The length of syllables has an important part to play in prominence.

3. A syllable will tend to be prominent if it contains a vowel that is different in

quality from neighboring vowels. (Roach, 2010, p. 74)

Demirezen (1986) compares stress and accent and concludes that while accent is a

general term for any system that requires emphasis on specific syllables, stress is just

one type of accent. He elaborates more on the descriptions of stress, giving much weight

to its nature, which relies heavily on muscular energy (Demirezen, 1986). Similar to

Roach (2010), Demirezen (1986) also discusses the prominence issue, linking it to

primary stress, which refers to a syllable in a word having the most prominence (Plag,

Kunter, & Schramm, 2011; Braun, Lemhöfer, & Mani, 2011).

Chun (2002) broadens the topic slightly by adding that in time- stressed languages

like English; the term stress is used to indicate word stress. Similar to Demirezen (1986),

she also contends that stress and accent are compatible and she establishes a connection

between stress and prominence in this way.

17

Pronunciation Teaching Around the World

Throughout the history of English as a foreign and second language teaching and

learning, pronunciation and its instruction have taken a long and evolving journey,

starting from the “Listen and Repeat” technique to “Analyze and Understand” until

today, where it has found a new and more approachable place to itself in the warm and

welcoming plateau of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), in which its main

focus has shifted from “correctness” and “native-likedness” to intelligibility and

comprehensibility (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 2010).

In as much as being considered an underestimated area in foreign language

education (Derwing, 2009; Derwing & Munro, 2005; Deng et al., 2009; Tanner, 2012;

Olson, 2014; Suwartono, & Rafli, 2015), pronunciation teaching is popularly debated

over the explicit and implicit instruction arena. Research indicates benefits to both type

of instruction, leaving the instructors in a persistent limbo about what action to choose

over in foreign language classrooms.

While there are studies displaying satisfactory results on the explicit teaching

(Kissling, 2013; Rajadurai, 2001; Saito, 2011; 2012), there is also research questioning

the effectiveness of pronunciation instruction in classrooms as a whole (Kendrick,

1997). Furthermore, there are also studies focusing on the pronunciation pedagogy in

teacher education (Burgess, Spencer, 2000; Derwing, 2009). In his study, Derwing

(2009) calls for the need for more pronunciation courses for English language teachers,

while Burgess and Spencer (2000) advocate the need for a stronger link between

pronunciation teaching and pronunciation training for educators.

From a likewise angle, Morley (1991) acknowledges that pronunciation aspect of

English has come a long way from whether or not to be taught in language classrooms to

the recognition of overwhelmingly increasing number of nonnative speakers all over the

18

world compared to the shrinking numbers of its native speakers, carrying with it the

demand or the need to effectively teach English pronunciation.

In a study, examining the pronunciation perceptions’ of learners, Derwing and

Rossiter (2002) find out that learners consider segmental features to be the most

problematic in their English pronunciation. The results of the same study also indicate a

lack of bridge between pronunciation instruction, specifically suprasegmental instruction

and learners’ needs.

Pronunciation Studies in Turkey

English pronunciation studies in Turkey accelerated during the late 1970s with the

published works of Demirezen (1978) and have evolved and changed dimensions several

times with the current trends in EFL context. During the course of 1980s, Demirezen

(e.g., 1981; 1982; 1985; 1986) continued his works in English pronunciation, focusing

on sounds of English, popularly known as segmentals. He also published two books

(Demirezen, 1986; 1987) in the late 1980s on English phonetics and phonology, which

constituted a concrete basis for teachers and researchers in the field.

Starting from the beginning of 2000s, mostly due to Communicative Language

Teaching (CLT) starting to become popular in Turkey EFL context, pronunciation

teaching had its share in the change of approaches in language teaching and

pronunciation studies started to accelerate. Coskun (2010) raises the question of which

English to teach, referring to English becoming a worldwide language, that keeps

increasing the number of its accents throughout the world. This emphasis on English

accents is followed by some studies, which examined ways of how to better teach

pronunciation, ranging from using traditional or modern techniques (Hismanoglu &

Hismanoglu, 2010), to the use of online resources (Hismanoglu, 2010), including

internet-based pronunciation teaching (Hismanoglu & Hismanoglu, 2011) to foster

learners’ pronunciation.

19

Another major focus of attention for pronunciation teaching in Turkey has been on

Turkish learners’ pronunciation errors. Demirezen (2005) draws attention to fossilized

mistakes of Turkish learners in English pronunciation and suggested Audio Articulation

Method (Demirezen, 2003; Hismanoglu, 2004) for corrections of these errors. Kayaoğlu

and Çaylak (2013) similarly use Audio Articulation Method in their study to assist

learners with pronunciation mistakes. Geylanioğlu and Dikilitaş (2012) also deal with

pronunciation errors of Turkish learners in their study and indicated that these errors

mostly stem from the differences in the phonology systems of English and Turkish. In a

similar vein, Varol (2012) investigates the influence of Turkish sound system on English

pronunciation in her dissertation and her findings are valuable in displaying the L1

(Turkish) sound system interference on L2 (English) pronunciation.

As a further to step to these studies, Akyol (2012) analyzes pronunciation learning

strategies of Turkish EFL learners in her experimental study, which compared whether

taking a pronunciation course will create a difference in the progress of learners

compared to learners who did not take a pronunciation course. Hismanoglu (2012) also

focuses on pronunciation learning strategies of learners, using a Pronunciation Strategies

questionnaire in addition to learners’ final exam scores on pronunciation. According to

the findings of his study, meta-cognitive strategies and self-evaluating were the two

most frequently used strategies of learners. In addition to these studies, which focused

on learners’ strategies to pronunciation learning, there are also studies exploring the

attitudes of English teachers towards teaching pronunciation (e.g., Coskun, 2011;

Hismanoglu & Hismanoglu, 2013). While Coskun (2011) handles the issue from English

as an International Language (EIL) perspective, Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu (2013)

deal with it by keeping the focus on the significance of teaching pronunciation in the

education of English language teachers in Turkey.

20

Seferoğlu (2005) applied technology (software reduction software) to explore

whether or not there will be improvements in learners’ pronunciation not only at

segmental but also at suprasegmental level. Her study has contributed immensely to the

statement that technology is a useful tool to provide pronunciation support for the

learners (Seferoğlu, 2005). Additionally, as a more specific focus on the use of

technology to foster learner pronunciation, Sara, Seferoğlu, and Çağıltay (2009)

investigated the implementation of multimedia messages through mobile phones to

observe how they affect learners’ pronunciation of words.

The first part of this research study focused on suprasegmentals from a broader

aspect to the more detailed analysis of what suprasegmentals are, and in what ways they

contribute to communication in ELF context. The next part of the literature review is

more related to pragmatics in order to explain implicatures and in what ways they

contribute to communication in ELF context. Firstly, a definition of what an implicature

is will be provided. Then, types of implicatures, implicatures in ELF, and implicature

studies in Turkey will be presented. Finally, fostering the comprehension of implicatures

by teaching suprasegmentals explicitly will be discussed.

Implicatures

The word ‘implicature’ made its debut in the literature with Grice’s (1970) article

Logic and Conversation. In this well known and much debated article, Grice (1970)

described two types of implicatures; conventional implicatures in which the meaning is

carried in what is said, and conversational implicatures in which meaning is implied

rather than said, so it is up to the participants to interpret it using what Grice (1970)

called the Cooperative Principle. According to this principle, there are four categories in

a conversation that must be followed: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Each

category has certain maxims: (pp. 45-46)

Quantity:

21

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

Quality:

1. Do not say what you believe to be false

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

Relation:

1. Be relevant

Manner:

1. Avoid obscurity of expression

2. Avoid ambiguity

3. Be brief

4. Be orderly

In his book, Irregular Negatives, Implicatures, and Idioms, Davis (2016) defines

implicatures as “a type of meaning or implying” (p. 51). In this thesis, implicatures will

be used to refer to implied meanings in verbal messages. According to Steedman (2002),

implied meaning refers to understanding that there might be differences between the

literal meaning and the real intention of the utterance. In a similar vein, Taguchi (2008)

notes that detecting the disparity between what is said and what is implied reflects the

ability of comprehending the intention of the utterance. Matsuoka (2009) associates the

comprehension of speaker intentions with a good command of understanding

conversational implicatures. Gibbs (1999) further notes that this comprehension relies

heavily on a mutual understanding and sharing the same common ground. He also

highlights the necessity of pragmatic information as an aid to understand what the

speaker actually implicates. Albright et al. (2004) refers to speech act theory in

explaining intended meanings and distinguished between locutionary acts as referring to

literal meanings and illocutionary acts as referring to intended meanings.

22

Although there is a common agreement among researchers that literal and intended

meanings are or could be distinctively different from each other, Recanati (2001) argues

that in order to be able to understand what has been implicated, one has to consider what

is literally said, since according to him, implicatures depend much on literal meanings.

Concluding this debate, Matsuoka (2009) points at a more important issue and builds a

connection between understanding implicatures, specifically conversational

implicatures, and understanding the spoken discourse. He further suggests an

improvement in learners’ communicative competence as a result of this connection.

Gibbs (1999) evaluates conversational implicatures under the broader topic of

figurative language, which includes but is not limited to metaphor, metonymy, irony,

and indirect speech acts and associates the comprehension of conversational

implicatures with cognitive processes. Moreover, he distinguishes between conventional

implicatures and conversational implicatures by arguing that the former requires

semantic information while the latter requires pragmatic processes. Taguchi (2002)

refers to these pragmatic processes as inferential abilities and asserted that these abilities

are existent in speakers’ L2 as much as they are in their L1, regardless of proficiency

levels. In his comparison of conventional and converstional implucatures, Potts (2005)

proclaims that conventional implicatures are dependent on linguistic features, namely

grammar, in their nature; whereas conversational implicatures would cease to exist

without the concept of maxims and cooperative principles, indicating that they are

“inherently linguistic”. In a further detailed analysis of the differences between these

two, Potts (2005) verifies that conversational implicatures are context dependent,

unfolding as features of connections among propositions. On the contrary, conventional

implicatures are independent of context, and reveal themselves exclusively in the

grammar. (Potts, 2005).

23

Implicatures in English as a Foreign Language

To implicate is a verb, first introduced by Grice (1970). Davis (2016) cites Grice’s

definition of this verb by stating that it is “meaning or implying one thing by saying

another” (p. 53). Haugh (2015) differentiates the two meanings of the word implicature,

giving prominence not to the first connotation of the verb, which is implying but to

second connotation, which is communicating or hinting in an indirect manner, which

leads to the conclusion that implicatures are indirect ways of communicating a message.

In accordance with this statement, Davis (2016) asserts “speakers can mean things

without intending to communicate with or inform anyone” (p. 52). Along the same line,

Steedman (2002) notes that the more conventionally a message is expressed, the easier it

is for the listener to comprehend it. However, in case of a lack of these conventional

features in the speech, more time and effort to decode and/or analyze the message will

be required from the listener.

Background knowledge, contextual information, and familiarity with the topic are all

agreed upon basics to comprehend a less conventional message. In this respect,

Steedman (2002) points out that along with the aforementioned basics, the linguistic

features should also be taken into account in order to deduce the hidden intentions in

messages. Additionally, diverting his attention to L2 learning, he advises L2 teachers to

put more emphasis on the importance of paralinguistic features (e.g. intonation, tone of

voice), along with contextual features, to help their students better understand the

indirect messages (Steedman, 2002)

While it may be perceived easily that L1 speakers are naturally equipped with

required contextual and/or linguistic background to understand implicatures, L2 learners

might just as easily lack the necessary skills. Therefore, L2 teachers might need some

additional guidelines to teach implicatures to their L2 learners. In their study,

Derakhshan, Mohsenzadeh, and Mohammadzadeh (2014) describe and exemplify types

24

of implicatures, and suggest some guidelines to teach them to L2 learners, based on the

guidelines put forward by Bouton (1994a). Taguchi (2005) approaches the instruction of

implicatures to L2 learners in a different angel and conducts a study on L2 learners’

speed and accuracy in understanding implicatures in listening in comparison to native

speakers and concluded that two components; working memory and lexical access skill

play an essential role in helping learners to comprehend implicatures in listening.

The importance of implicatures in oral communication brings back the question; can

they be taught? Broersma’s (1994) study aims to seek out whether or not implicatures

could be taught explicitly to L2 learners. He finds that in the case that the implicatures

are existent in learners’ L1, they are easier to learn and understand, compared to the ones

that are not existent in learners’ L1. Kubota (1995) also investigates the explicit teaching

of implicatures to L2 learners and got results approving the benefits of the explicit

instruction. Matsuoka’s (2009) study stands out to be slightly different than the two

previously mentioned studies, as implicature teaching is one of the three trainings. In his

study, which is aimed to train participants to improve on their TOEFL listening test,

implicature training is used as a way of improving participants’ comprehension of

speaker intentions. Although the results do not indicate a significance favor on the

teaching of implicatures, Matsuoka (2009) notes that the implicature training is

considered to be interesting and engaging for the participants.

Some other studies also examine whether or not learners improve their implicature

interpretation skills by living in an English speaking country (Bouton, 1992), with

results indicating that although there is considerable progress, there is still a significant

different between the performance of native speakers and nonnative speakers in their

implicature interpretation skills.

25

Implicature Studies in Turkey

Although there are several studies in Turkey, focusing on several aspects of

Pragmatics (e.g. Ortaçtepe, 2013, 2015; Şanal, 2016), there is a scarcity (Alagözlü &

Büyüköztürk, 2009; Alagözlü, 2013; Rizaoğlu & Yavuz, 2017) and thus a strong need

for studies focusing on specifically implicatures.

In their study, Alagözlü and Büyüköztürk (2009) examine the relationship between

the pragmatic comprehension levels and learners’ oral and written performances and

find out that there is a strong connection (although not statistically significant) between

pragmatic competency and linguistic achievement. As a second phase in this study,

Alagözlü (2013), pragmatic comprehension levels of the same participants were tested

aurally to observe whether or not there is statistically significant difference between the

scores over time.

Rizaoğlu and Yavuz’s (2017) study investigates Turkish ELF learners’

comprehension and production of implicatures, using an Implicature Comprehension

Instrument (ICI), and an Implicature Production Instrument (IPI). These studies reflect

the implicature exploration in Turkey EFL settings, which appears to have been centered

mostly on comprehension of implicatures by the learners orally or written.

Fostering the Comprehension of Implicatures by Teaching Suprasegmentals

In his book Irregular Negatives, Implicatures, and Idioms, Davis (2016) questions long

and hard the reason(s) why speakers have a need to use implicatures in their speeches,

and what goals are achieved with the use of implicatures. Along the same line, he points

out that on the circumstance that a speaker has implicated, hearers are not provided with

something directly (Davis, 2016). Therefore, it is the hearers’ responsibility to “infer

from evidence” (Davis, 2016, p. 54).

Chen, Gussenhoven, and Rietveld (2004) highlight the universality of

suprasegmental features in all languages in their study, drawing attention to the fact that

26

they contribute immensely to the different meanings in a message. Adding further to

suprasegmentals’ function in different meanings in a message, Clennell (1997) asserts

that EFL learners do not possess the competence and/ or confidence in English

intonation because of four main reasons; unfamiliarity of English suprasegmentals, a

failed attempt to describe them, the differences between L1 suprasegmental features and

English, and material problems. One of the predicaments these problems might lead to

has been analyzed as communication failures (Clennell, 1997).

Previous studies have strengthened the connection between intonation and meaning (e.g.

Chen, Gussenhoven & Rietveld, 2004; Germani & Rivas, 2011; Verdugo, 2005;

Pickering &Litzenber (2011); Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg, 1990). A good number of

studies focus on the perception of suprasegmental features in language classrooms (e.g.

Mirzaei & Abdollahian, 2012; Grabe, Rosner, Garcia-Albea & Zhou, 2003; Kakaouros

& Rasanen, 2015; Mattys, 2000), while several others explored the teaching of them in

language classrooms (e.g. Levis & Pickering, 2004; Marcellino & Rocca, 1997; Kurt,

Medlin & Tessarolo, 2014; Hsieh, Dong & Wang, 2013).

In her study, which is an overview of literature on prosody and intonation of

English, Mennen (2007) presents what type of errors non-native speakers of English

make in intonation and where these errors originate from, concluding that problems in

prosody and intonation carry with them the potential danger of communication

breakdowns. Atoye (2005) specifically examines learners’ perception in intonation, and

meaning change with the changing of intonation, and observes that learners’ scores are

high in perception, but low in meaning changes connected to intonation contours. The

study advocates the teaching of intonation as a way to analyze meaning in social

contexts. In another overview study, Jenkins (2004) summarizes recent developments in

pronunciation studies and their effect in classroom practices. Her study clearly indicates

the updated role of pronunciation in discourse and sociolinguistics (Jenkins, 2004).

27

Another similar study emphasizes the changing and improving ways of teaching

pronunciation in the world for the last quarter of a century (Morley, 1991). All in all,

Morley (1991) reiterates the importance of pronunciation for communication. Finally,

there is also research, which takes into consideration L1 influence on L2 suprasegmental

perception and production (Braun, Galts & Kabak, 2014; Crosby, 2013; Tsurutani, 2009;

Ortega-Llebaria & Colantoni, 2014)

Conclusion

This chapter reviewed literature relevant to the present study, which aims to

explore the effects of explicit suprasegmental training on the improvement of Turkish

EFL learners’ perception and interpretation of implicatures in English. The review began

with general terminology such as phonology, phonetics in a way to acknowledge their

significance in understanding pronunciation before going in depth with features of

English Pronunciation (Segmental & Suprasegmental), and then moving on to

Suprasegmental aspects: stress, pitch and intonation. The first part of the chapter was

completed with a broad description of pronunciation studies around the world in general

and in Turkey in specific. The second part of this chapter opens up with definitions of

what implicature means. Following up is the implicature studies around the world and

implicature studies in Turkey. The chapter ends with fostering the comprehension of

implicatures by teaching suprasegmentals, which is the subject of the current study. The

following chapter will provide information about methodology of the study.

28

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Introduction

This study investigated the effects of explicit teaching of suprasegmentals to

promote tertiary level Turkish EFL learners’ interpretation of implicatures. The

following research questions were addressed in this study:

1. What was Turkish EFL learners’ pronunciation background before the beginning

of the study?

2. To what extent did Turkish EFL learners recognize implicatures in aural texts

before and after the explicit teaching of suprasegmentals?

3. What were Turkish EFL learners’ perceptions about the treatment sessions

during the intervention period?

In this chapter, the methodological procedures are outlined. Firstly, the setting and

the participants of the study will be described. Then, the materials and instruments used

to collect data will be explained. Finally, the data analysis procedures will be presented

in detail.

Setting

The study took place in the English Program at School of Foreign Languages at

Akdeniz University, Turkey during the fall semester of the 2016-2017 academic year.

This particular setting was chosen because of its eligibility and convenience. The School

of Foreign Languages provides obligatory and optional foreign language education

depending on the particular faculty and department. Students enroll in the English

Program in September and take a proficiency test prepared by the testing unit.

According to their test results, they are placed into various proficiency levels (A1 in

majority, and A2 as the second biggest group and one or two classes of B1 level

29

students). The test includes grammar, vocabulary and reading test items. During the

course of the program, students are offered 25 hours of English each week, together with

the main course and the integrated skills. Two or three different instructors teach the

same class during each semester. The school has a strong technology- assisted education

system, in which all classrooms are equipped with computers, projectors, speakers and

the Internet. Instructors also make use of I-tools and DigiBooks provided by the

publishing companies. As the main course book, New Headway is used for all

proficiency levels, which is accompanied by Skillful Listening & Speaking, and Reading

& Writing. Additionally, supplementary storybooks are used within the curriculum

throughout the full academic year. In a whole school year, students take three module

tests, which consist of Grammar and Vocabulary, Reading, Writing and Speaking parts.

They are expected to get a score of 60 points out of 100 in order to be considered as

successful. However, they continue with the new Module even if they fail to acquire the

required score. Each module includes two quizzes and two portfolios: one written

portfolio and one speaking portfolio. Quizzes have a 20% effect on the students’ overall

grade, portfolios have a 10% effect, and finally Module exams affect the students’

overall grade 30%. The combined 60% is then added to the grade students get from the

final exam at the end of the school year, which has an effect of 40%. All these grades

add up eventually and if they make 60 points or more, the student is considered as

passing the English Program year, and continues with his/her studies in the faculty until

the graduation day. However, for obligatory students, on the occasion that they fail the

English Program, they still continue their studies in the faculties, on condition that they

pass the English Program exam within four years of their university career until they are

ready to graduate. If they cannot pass the English exam, they forfeit their right to

graduate. These obligatory program students who fail the English Program exam have

the right to retake the exam four times in four years. Optional Program students continue

with their regular studies at university, being exempt from the English Program exam.

30

Participants

A total of 45 students between the ages 18-20, from various faculties, and both

from obligatory and optional programs took part in the training voluntarily. However,

nine students had to be excluded from the study because they missed more than two

sessions. The remaining 36 participants consisted of 16 female and 20 male participants.

All of the participants in this study were A1 (Beginner) level students with little

background in English, in the beginning of the training sessions. By the sixth session,

they upgraded to A2 (Elementary) level after the Module exam. The researcher led all

the training sessions herself during the designated hours as an addition to the regular

school program in order not to interfere with the English Program schedule. The

participants received one training session every week over a course of eight-week

period, before or after the start of their regular classes according to the predetermined

program between the researcher and the participants. In the first two weeks of the

training program, the participants received two sessions in one week so as to build the

fundamental knowledge and awareness through intense training.

Materials and Instruments

Materials and instruments that were utilized to collect data in this study are as

follows; pronunciation background questionnaire, pre-test before the training sessions,

with listening items recorded by 2 native speakers and the researcher, treatment

worksheets and Powerpoint presentations, an evaluation form at the end of each training

session, consisting of a 10-item Likert Scale and an open-ended question at the end, and

finally the post-test after the completion of the treatment. For test reliability and validity,

every item in the pre-test, the post-test and Likert Scale was evaluated in terms of item

difficulty, item discrimination, item variance, item standard deviation, item Skewness

and Kurtosis index as well as mean, standard deviation and test reliability.

31

Pronunciation Background and Attitude Questionnaire (PBAQ)

The questionnaire was designed for two main purposes: to gain insights into

participants’ pronunciation background, and to design the treatment sessions

accordingly. It consisted of three sections, with a total of 22 items (see Appendix A).

The first section required the participants to answer four general questions about their

background as well as their attitudes towards it, with one question specifically focusing

on pronunciation. The second section consisted of 17 Likert scale items, with an

emphasis on English pronunciation and its components, and finally the last section was

an open-ended question, requiring the participants to write their genuine answers about

what they do to improve their English pronunciation. The questionnaire was also aimed

for preparing the most effective materials to be using during the treatment. Various

existing literature related to investigating the learners’ pronunciation background in and

attitudes towards pronunciation influenced the design of the questionnaire (e.g., de Saint

Léger & Storch, 2009; Jahangiri & Sardareh, 2016; Kang, 2010). The researcher adopted

the items in the questionnaire in order to fit to the purpose of the present study.

The Implicature Recognition Test

The implicature recognition test (see Appendix B) was comprised of 10

implicatures, designed by the researcher, based on Grice’s Theory of Implicatures

(1975), which was used later on by Taguchi (2008). Two native speakers, and the

researcher herself were recorded, reading 10 short dialogues with the required

production of suprasegmental cues to emphasize the intended meaning. The participants

were given the same test twice; one, before listening, and one more time after listening.

They were given ample time to go over the implicatures before they started doing the

test. In the first round, they were asked to read the implicatures on the test and answer

the following questions with their own judgement;

1. What does the speaker think?

32

2. How can you tell?

On the second round, they listened to the recordings and were asked to answer the same

two questions again, after listening. The purpose of this application was to detect

whether or not there are any differences between their answers with and without hearing

the oral cues.

Sample item from Pretest:

Mary shows Angela her new haircut, and asks her opinion about it. Mary replies “it

looks great!”

What does the speaker think?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Explicit Teaching of Suprasegmental Features

After the implicature recognition test, participants received training on explicit

teaching of suprasegmentals for the purposes of improving their comprehension of

implicatures for ten class hours (50 minutes each) over the course of ten weeks. In the

explicit teaching, the emphasis was on attitudinal and emotional functions of

suprasegmentals in conveying the intended meanings in oral communication. Stress,

pitch, and intonation were the main focus in the treatment. The sessions were supported

with PPTs, selected scenes from predetermined TV shows, and everyday English

dialogues from various online resources. The participants were given sufficient time and

assistance not only to recognize but also to practice all suprasegmental features that were

taught within the sessions. The treatment began one month after the academic year

started, having given the participants some time to acquire basic knowledge in English.

Segmental training. In the beginning of their English Language Program at

Akdeniz University, the participants were given segmental training by the researcher

33

within the course of their regular program at School of Foreign Languages. The purpose

of this training was to introduce the participants the sound system in English and

increase their general awareness of English Phonology since the course book provides

limited exposure to the pronunciation feature of English language. This training included

the introduction of International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), with a special focus on the

sounds that exist in English language but not in the participants’ native language

(Turkish), such as /θ/and /ð/. There was also another focus on sounds that both

languages have but are articulated differently, such as /d/ or /v/. When /d/ is at the end of

a Turkish word, it is pronounced as /t/. However, when this sound is at the end of an

English word, it is pronounced as /d/. There is even a much bigger difference with /v/.

While the Turkish /v/ is pronounced as English /w/, English /v/ is fricative and thus

pronounced using a similar articulation process as the sound /f/, which is also fricative in

both languages. The segmental training was initially aimed to increase the participants’

pronunciation awareness on sound level, which would then assist them to improve their

suprasegmental awareness once the treatment sessions begin, and thus would serve the

overall purpose of improving their pronunciation.

Introduction of Stress, Pitch, and Intonation. The participants were introduced

with the technical terms stress, pitch, and intonation explicitly. First, these terms were

described and examples were provided to ensure a better understanding. Then the

participants were given practice time to rediscover these terms by themselves and with

their partners. The sessions started on word level, in that the participants were illustrated

how to say a simple hi to have several different meanings and interpretations. They were

guided by the researcher with the assistance of PPTs to use different emotions to say the

word hi, such as “Say hi when you are sad, happy, angry”, etc. They then elevated to

sentence level in which the participants were asked to emphasize a different word in a

sentence to mean different things, as in the example sentence “I didn’t say that we

should call him.” By putting the stress on a word each time, eight different meanings can

34

be inferred from this simple sentence (as many as the number of words in the sentence.)

As an example, the meaning changes when the stress is on the word I, implying that

someone else, not I, said that we should call him. However, if the stress is put on the

word didn’t, then the meaning changes to “I am denying saying it.”

The participants were also introduced to rising and falling intonation. They were

overtly guided which specific situations require a falling intonation, such as asking and

giving information to sound more confident and convincing, and thus communicating

certainty and completion, and which ones require a rising intonation, such as Tag

Questions to sound surprised or interested, thus communicating uncertainty and doubt.

TV Shows. The main practice materials used in this study came from episodes of

popular TV shows. The reason for choice lies in the fact that TV shows are available to

anyone and everyone, and they also serve the purpose of fostering more authentic

materials in language classrooms. American television sitcom Friends makes up the

most used material due to two strong reasons. First, since the show is based on simple

lives of six friends in New York, the language of the show is every day language, which

makes it highly appealing to EFL teachers. The EFL learners watching the show would

not have to deal with any jargon related to the topic of the show, as they would have in

shows like House MD, in which they would hear all these medical terms and words or

Law and Order, in which they would hear lots of forensic words. Second, it has been

used in ELF/ ESL research previously because of the show’s daily language use,

(Frumuselu, 2015; Mora 2006; Sallert, 2016).

Evaluation Form

The evaluation forms consisted of 10 Likert Scale items (see Appendix D), with

an ‘Other Comments’ section at the end, which enabled the participants to comment

freely on how they felt about the session. The Likert Scale items were aimed at creating

awareness in participants about what they have learnt in the session that day, and how

35

much of it they could make their own permanently. The evaluation forms were given

after every session, therefore the participants completed ten evaluation forms at the end

of the training. The evaluation forms were also translated into Turkish in order to receive

more genuine feedback from the participants about the implementation of the materials.

The items measured their perceptions and comprehension of the taught subject in that

day’s session.

Sample Likert Scale Items:

I learned something new in today’s session. 1 2 3 4 5

I believe the things I learned in this session will be beneficial to my

pronunciation. 1 2 3 4 5

Implicature Recognition Post- test

Following the end of the training sessions, a posttest (see Appendix E) was given to

the participants, which included 20 implicatures, the first 10 items remaining the same as

in the pre-test, and another completely new 10 items, based on Grice’s Theory of

Implicatures (1975). In accordance with the pretest, two native speakers, and the

researcher herself were recorded, reading 20 short dialogues with the required

production of suprasegmental cues to emphasize the intended meaning. The participants

were asked to read the test items, listen to the recordings and answer the following

questions;

1. What does the speaker think?

2. How can you tell?

Sample Posttest Item:

John left Jenny his dog, and asks how she got along with the dog.

She replies “We were so happy to have her”

What does the speaker think?……………………………………………………………………

How can you tell? ………………………………………………………………………………..

36

There are two main differences between the implementation of the pre-test and

the posttest. These are; in the pre-test, the participants were given only ten test items,

while in the post-test, they were given twenty items. The reason behind this is related to

the pilot study. In the pilot study, when the participants were given twenty items in the

pretest, they were observed to be overwhelmed with the abundance of the items, and

thus lost focus after working on ten items. As a result, in the actual study, the item

numbers were arranged to keep the participants’ total focus. The other big difference

between the pre-test and the post-test is; in the pretest, the participants were given the

same test twice and were asked to reply to the two questions “What does the speaker

think? How can you tell?” before and after listening to the audio recordings. The reason

for this was twofold; one to measure their comprehension and interpretation of

implicatures, and two, to make an introduction to the upcoming training sessions, in

which they were explicitly instructed to pay attention to oral cues in the communication.

Data Collection Procedures

Permission to conduct the study was granted from both The Ethics Committee at

Bilkent University and Akdeniz University, and then the data collection process began.

Consent forms of the participants who volunteered to take part in the study were

collected after the explanation of the study in detail.

Before applying, the materials and instruments were piloted at Bilkent

University, English Language and Literature students. Twenty-six students consented to

participate in the piloting. They were given the background questionnaire, the

implicature recognition test as the pre-test, and one session training on suprasegmentals,

and the post-test. The data collected from these advanced level students were entered

into SPSS to analyze whether or not the recognition of implicatures with the help of

suprasegmental features of pronunciation is higher with a higher level of English

proficiency. Results showed that there is a correlation between the proficiency level of

37

the participants and the recognition of implicatures.

The pilot study was conducted for two main reasons; first, to test the efficiency

of the actual study. The second one carried a more significant role; whether or not the

actual study could be conducted with the participants that took part in the pilot study.

The participants of the pilot study were all English Language and Literature students at

Bilkent University. They were all in their freshman year. Due to the fact that the English

Language and Literature Program at Bilkent University is highly competitive, the

students all had decent backgrounds in English, which was first reflected in their

answers to the background questionnaire, and then was displayed in their scores in the

pre-test. The results of the pilot study demonstrated that advanced level English learners

have a better perception of suprasegmentals and their effects on the comprehension of

implicatures. For this reason, the study was not carried on with the participants of the

pilot study.

Based on the results acquired from the pilot study, as actual participants,

Beginner level (A1) students were chosen for this study. The aim of this choice was to

observe the effectiveness of the treatment sessions with learnerss who have little or no

background in English, which is usually the case at the English Language Program at

Akdeniz University. Every year, beginner level students outnumber any other level

students, making these learners the largest group at hand. Furthermore, every year the

achievement test results indicate that most of these learners fail to meet the requirements

of the English Language Program and leave the School of Foreign Languages with poor

language skills. As a result, it is of high importance to Akdeniz University School of

Foreign Languages to help these learners improve their English as much as possible.

To commence the treatment, the participants were given a background

questionnaire about their English pronunciation. The questionnaire took about 20-25

minutes to complete and its aim was to acquire enough data about the participants’

English pronunciation background so as to prepare the forthcoming training sessions

38

more effectively, as well as serving the purpose of obtaining a more concrete

background on the participants’ previous experiences with the topic. Hence, the

background questionnaire was translated into Turkish for the convenience of the

participants.

Prior to the beginning of the training, the participants were given a pre-test to

examine their overall recognition of suprasegmentals in identifying and interpreting

implicatures. The pre-test was implemented as follows; the participants were first given

time to read the ten short situations and answer two relating questions without listening

to the audio recordings. The questions were:

1. What does the speaker think?

2. How can you tell?

Following the completion of their first answers, they listened to the recordings

and answered the same two questions after listening. The aim of this implementation

was to explore whether or not the oral cues would have an effect on their comprehension

and interpretation of the situations.

During the sessions, the participants were provided with ample time and

opportunity to comprehend and practice each topic of each session. Furthermore, at the

end of each training session, an evaluation form, designed for the purpose of obtaining

immediate feedback on the session was provided to the participants. However, unlike the

pre-test, in the post-test, the participants only listened and answered the same two

questions according to the recording:

1.What does the speaker think?

2. How can you tell?

Both in the pre-test and the post-test, participants were allowed to answer these

questions in Turkish for the purpose of collecting more genuine answers.

39

Data Analysis

Data analysis was mainly done quantitatively with the use of Statistical Package

for Social Sciences (SPSS), a computer program so often used to analyze numeric data

in scientific research studies. As an initial step of quantitative analysis, the participants’

replies to the background questionnaire, which has 16 items, were entered into SPSS and

descriptive statistics was run to analyze their attitudes and previous experiences about

the English pronunciation (PBAQ). Secondly, the implicature recognition test results

were entered into SPSS and again descriptive statistics was used to analyze the mean

scores of their results with the purpose of analyzing the learners’ overall performance on

recognizing the implicatures by following the suprasegmental cues. After that, the

participants’ answers to 10 Likert Scale items, which were designed to analyze the

learners’ overall perception of the treatment sessions throughout 10 weeks, were entered

into SPSS and descriptive statistics was applied. Stacked bar charts were created from

the participants’ replies acquired from this questionnaire, showing whether they had

developed positive or negative feelings towards the treatment process. Following the

completion of pre-test and post-test, the first step in data analysis was to score the

participants’ total scores. The data obtained from participants’ pre-test and post-test

results were entered into SPSS, and a normality test was run in order to see whether or

not the data set is normally distributed. A Shapiro Wilk test was run because the sample

size was smaller than 50. Due to the fact that the data were not normally distributed, a

non-parametric test (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test) was applied to compare the results of

the pre-test and post-test. A frequency table was created from the participants’ answers

to the pre-test, and the post-test.

The research question “What were the learners’ perceptions about the treatment

sessions during the intervention period?” was answered using the 10-itemed evaluation

worksheets after each session during the intervention. The stacked bar charts in Chapter

4 demonstrates the mean scores and the percentages of the learners’ replies gathered

40

from 10 evaluation worksheets. The learners’ answers to the open-ended question,

“What do you think about today’s session?” in the evaluation worksheets was

demonstrated using content analysis. Weber (1990) notes that one of the purposes of

using content analysis is to interpret open-ended questions in questionnaires. In view of

research, the content provided by the participants was coded into themes and categories.

There appeared some elements that occurred quite often in the learners’ answers. They

were considered as main themes, and less frequently occurring elements were

categorized under the main themes in the case where it was fitting and they were

interpreted using content analysis. The results of this analysis are presented in detail in

Chapter 4.

Conclusion

This chapter provided information about the methodology of the current study.

The setting, the participants, data collection, and the treatment process and finally the

data analysis were explained in detail. The next chapter will present the findings of the

data analysis in detail.

41

CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

This study investigated the effects of explicit teaching of English

suprasegmentals in a way to assist the comprehension of implicatures by Turkish EFL

learners. The following research questions were addressed in this study:

1. What was the learners’ background in and attitudes toward pronunciation before

the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features?

2. To what extent do Turkish EFL learners recognize implicatures in aural texts

before and after the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features?

3. What are the learners’ perceptions about the explicit teaching of suprasegmental

features?

In this chapter, the results of the data analysis will be presented in the order of

these research questions. Data analysis procedures in this study was mainly done using

the statistics software program SPSS. The first stage of the data analysis was related to

the participants’ responses to the Pronunciation Background and Attitudes Questionnaire

(PBAQ). Descriptive statistics was applied to analyze the participants’ attitudes towards

English pronunciation. A frequency table has been created from their responses to

PBAQ, with a summary of important points described. The next stage of the analysis

involved the data related to the participants’ pre-test and post-test results. Since the data

was not normally distributed, a Wilcoxon signed-ranked test was used to compare

participants’ performance before and after the treatment sessions.

The final stage of the analysis is related to the evaluation forms collected after

each treatment session for the purpose of getting insights about learners’ perceptions

about the sessions. Descriptive statistics was applied to 10 Likert Scale items in the first

42

part of the form, and mean scores obtained from responses have been demonstrated in

Stacked Bar charts. Additionally, the qualitative data collected through the participants’

responses to the open-ended question in the second part of the evaluation form has been

categorized according to the similarity of content, and is reported in this chapter to

enrich the quantitative data concerning the learners’ thoughts about the sessions.

Results

Learners’ Pronunciation Background and Attitudes

The first research question addressed in this study is “What was the learners’

background in and attitudes toward pronunciation before the explicit teaching of

suprasegmental features?” In order to answer this question, a frequency table was

created from the responses of the participants to the Pronunciation Background and

Attitudes Questionnaire (PBAQ), which had 16 items, and which was conducted prior to

the intervention. A frequency distribution of data is displayed in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Frequency Distribution of Pronunciation Background and Attitudes Questionnaire

(N=52)

Str

on

gly

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

ha

t d

isa

gre

e

Nei

ther

dis

ag

ree n

or

ag

ree

So

mew

ha

t a

gre

e

Str

on

gly

ag

ree

f % f % f % f % F %

1. Good pronunciation in English is important to

me.

1 1.9 2 3.8 3 5.8 19 36.5 27 51.9

2. I would like to sound like a native English

speaker when I speak English.

1 1.9 4 7.7 3 5.8 14 26.9 30 57.7

3. I consider pronunciation a key aspect for

communication.

1 1.9 1 1.9 7 13.5 22 42.3 21 40.4

4. I like learning English pronunciation. 2 3.8 6 11.5 16 30.8 12 23.1 16 30.8

43

The items in the background questionnaire were designed to explore Turkish

EFL learners’ awareness of English pronunciation. The results in Table 1 reveal several

insights about their pronunciation awareness. Firstly, it is clear that having a good

Table 1 Frequency Distribution of Pronunciation Background and Attitudes Questionnaire (cont’d)

5. I believe I can improve my pronunciation skills

in English (with help or on my own).

0 0.0 2 3.8 8 15.4 15 28.8 27 51.9

6. I believe I will able to speak English with a

good accent.

3 5.8 15 28.8 20 38.5 6 11.5 8 15.4

7. Pronunciation should be taught more in

lessons.

1 1.9 5 9.6 11 21.2 19 36.5 16 30.8

8. I try to imitate native speakers of English as

much as possible.

2 3.8 4 7.7 11 21.2 20 38.5 15 28.8

9. I am satisfied with my pronunciation in

English.

4 7.7 6 11.5 14 26.9 12 23.1 16 30.8

10. I am satisfied with the effort I devote to

improve my pronunciation.

18 34

.6

13 25.0 12 23.1 7 13.5 2 3.8

11. I think English videos and audios can help me

learn English pronunciation.

6 11.5 12 23.1 18 34.6 10 19.2 6 11.5

12. I think that singing songs in English can

improve my pronunciation.

1 1.9 0 0.0 7 13.5 21 40.4 23 44.2

13. I think that repetition and imitation are helpful

ways to learn pronunciation.

2 3.8 3 5.8 11 21.2 10 19.2 26 50.0

No

t fa

mil

iar

wit

h

the

term

No

t so

im

po

rtan

t

So

mew

hat

imp

ort

ant

Imp

ort

ant

Ver

y i

mp

ort

ant

f % f % f % f % f %

14. How often do you pay attention to rising and

falling pitch in your pronunciation?

0 0.0 1 1.9 13 25.0 1

9

36.5 19 36.5

15. How often do you pay attention to word and

sentence stress in your pronunciation?

1

2

23.

1

2

1

40.

4

12 23.1 6 11.5 1 1.9

16. How important is intonation for pronunciation? 7 13.5 21 40.4 20 38.5 4 7.7 0 0.0

44

pronunciation is important for the learners (27 out of 52 participants, 51.9% replied

“strongly agree”). When asked if they would like to sound like a native speaker, 30

participants (57.7%) declared they strongly agree with this statement. The replies to this

item display a remarkable tendency from the participants to want to sound like a native

speaker.

Additionally, the participants in this study consider pronunciation an important

element for communication (21 out of 52 participants, 40.4 %). However, only less than

half of the participants (30.8 %) have positive attitudes towards learning pronunciation.

Despite this, results demonstrate the participants’ positive believes about improving their

pronunciation skills (51.9 %).

Furthermore, the frequencies reflect that although the participants believe they

can improve their English pronunciation, they still do not believe they could speak

English with a good accent. 20 participants (38.5 %) declared they neither agreed nor

disagreed with this statement. The results of the aforementioned item might provide

reasons for the results of the next item, in which the majority of the participants state

they demand more pronunciation instruction in English lessons. 19 out of 52 participants

(36.5%) replied ‘somewhat agree’, while 16 participants (30.8 %) replied ‘strongly

agree’ to this statement.

Learners’ Recognition of Implicatures in Aural Messages Before and After The

Explicit Teaching of Suprasegmentals

In order to determine whether the participants’ results in the pre-test conducted before

the beginning of the study and the results in the post-test conducted after the completion

of the study, were normally distributed, a normality test was done. The results of the

normality test are displayed in Table 2.

45

Table 2

Results of Normality Test

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig.

Pretest .850 38 .000

Posttest .957 38 .152

When Table 2 is examined, it can be seen that the pre-test results are not

normally distributed (p <.05). However, the post-test results are normally distributed

(p>.05). For this reason, to determine whether or not there is a statistically significant

difference between the participants’ overall pre-test and post-test results, Wilcoxon test,

one of the non-parametric tests, was applied.

With the purpose of finding an answer for the second research question “To what

extent do Turkish EFL learners recognize implicatures in aural texts before and after the

explicit teaching of suprasegmentals?’’ the scores from the pre-test, which was

conducted prior to the beginning of the study, and the scores from the post-test, which

was conducted after the completion of the study were entered into SPSS. The frequency

distribution of the results is displayed in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test Results (n=38)

Pre-test Post-test

False True False True

f % f % f % f %

1. A wife says to her husband “I just love it when you

help me in the kitchen.”

What does the speaker think?

How can you tell?

34 89.5 4 10.5 25 65.8 13 34.2

46

2. Mary shows Angela her new haircut, and asks her

opinion about it. Mary replies “it looks great!”

What does the speaker think?

How can you tell?

33 86.8 5 13.2 17 44.7 21 55.3

3.John left Jenny his dog, and asks how she got along

with the dog.

She replies “We were so happy to have her”

What does the speaker think?

How can you tell?

38 100.0 0 0.0 21 55.3 17 44.7

4. David and Karen are talking about David’s cough,

which he’s had for two weeks now. She says, “The

weather is getting warmer now so perhaps your cough

will go away.”

What does the speaker think?

How can you tell?

32 84.2 6 15.8 21 55.3 17 44.7

5. Amanda is always busy at work because her boss

gives her lots of work. Her colleagues ask her how she

feels about it. She says; it’s because she likes me better

than everybody else.

What does the speaker think?

How can you tell?

35 92.1 3 7.9 25 65.8 13 34.2

7. Sanem’s child knocked over a vase and broke it.

Sanem asks Dorothy:

Sanem: Oh was that an important vase?

Dorothy: No, not at all.

What does Dorothy think?

How can you tell?

25 65.8 13 34.2 10 26.3 28 73.7

Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test Results (cont’d)

47

8. Berna has just listened to an announcement at the

airport. She speaks with the person sitting next to her;

Berna: Our flight is delayed?

Passanger: Waiting at the airport is surely a lot of fun.

What does the passanger think?

How can you tell?

20 52.6 18 47.7 11 28.9 27 71.1

9. Marta had a talk at an important international

conference. Two days before the conference, she learns

that her talk was cancelled. Tina asks her about it;

Tina: Were you completely disappointed about the

cancellation of your lecture?

Marta: No, not at all. Now I can spend that time

watching the conference live on web.

What does Martha think?

How can you tell?

33 86.8 5 13.2 18 47.4 20 52.6

10. A new student tells Mehtap about Tom.

A: I met Tom a few days ago but everybody seems to

know him.

Mehtap: Yeah, he’s really popular at school.What does

Mehtap think?

How can you tell?

38 100 0 0 15 39.5 23 60.5

11. Sue and Judy about Karen, one of their colleagues;

Sue: I had lunch with Jane yesterday. She talked about

nothing but her problems with her husband during the

entire lunch.

Judy: She is really fun to spend time with these days.

What does Judy think?

How can you tell?

24 63.2 14 36.8 11 28.9 27 71.1

Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Pre-test and Post-test Results (cont’d)

48

When Table 3 is examined, it can be seen that while 34 participants (89.5%)

answered wrong and only 4 participants (10.5%) answered correctly to the question

“What does the speaker think?” for the first situation “A wife says to her husband “I just

love it when you help me in the kitchen.” What does the speaker think?” in the pre-test,

for the same situation, 25 participants (65.8%) answered wrong, and 13 participants

(34.2%) answered correctly in the post-test. For the aforementioned item, it can be

observed that there has been a slight increase in the participants’ success to answer this

question. As a result, it can be argued that the treatment has had an effect on the

participants in improving the skill assessed in this item.

Looking at the results for the second item “Mary shows Angela her new haircut,

and asks her opinion about it. Mary replies “it looks great!” it can be seen that while 33

participants (86.8 %) gave a wrong answer, and 5 participants (13.2%) gave a correct

answer in the pre-test, in the post-test, 17 participants (44.7%) gave a wrong answer

while 21 participants (55.3%) gave a correct answer for the same item. Compared to the

results of the pre-test, there seems to be a respectable increase in the number of correct

answers for this item.

Examining the results for the next item “John left Jenny his dog, and asks how

she got along with the dog. She replies “We were so happy to have her” none of the

participants (100%) were able to give a correct answer for this situation in the pre-test,

while 21 participants (55.3 %) gave a wrong answer and 17 participants (44.7 %) gave a

correct for the same item in the post-test. Therefore, it can be argued that for the skills

assessed in this item, the treatment has had a positive influence on the participants.

Results of the next item David and Karen are talking about David’s cough, which

he’s had for two weeks now. She says, “The weather is getting warmer now so perhaps

your cough will go away” indicate a positive change in the number of correct answers

for this item in the posttest compared to the scores in the pre-test. In the pre-test 32

participants (84.2%) gave a wrong answer and only 6 participants (15.8%) gave a correct

49

answer. However, in the post-test, 21 participants (55.3 %) answered wrong while 17

participants (44.7 %) answered correctly for the same item.

The next item is “Amanda is always busy at work because her boss gives her lots

of work. Her colleagues ask her how she feels about it. She says; it’s because she likes

me better than everybody else.” In the pre-test, 35 participants (92.1%) answered wrong

while three participants (7.9%) answered correctly. However, in the post-test, 25

participants (65.8%) gave a wrong answer while 13 participants (34.2%) gave a correct

answer. There is, again a slight increase in the number of correct answers for this item

after the treatment.

Item number 7 in the post-test is the next item being evaluated. For this item,

“Sanem’s child knocked over a vase and broke it. Sanem asks Dorothy: Sanem: Oh was

that an important vase? Dorothy: No, not at all” 25 participants (65.8%) answered wrong

while 13 participants (34.2%) answered correctly in the pre-test. However, in the post-

test, 10 participants (26.3%) gave a wrong answer while 28 participants (73.7%) gave a

correct answer. It could be put forward that after the treatment, there has been a

significant improvement in the skills that are assessed in this item.

The next item is “Berna has just listened to an announcement at the airport. She

speaks with the person sitting next to her; Berna: Our flight is delayed? Passanger:

Waiting at the airport is surely a lot of fun.” For this item, 20 participants (52.6%)

answered wrong while 18 participants (47.7%) answered correctly in the pre-test. In the

post-test, however, 11 participants (28.9%) answered wrong while 27 participants

(71.1%) answered correctly. Therefore, it could be argued that there has been an

important improvement for the skill tested in this item.

For the next situation “Marta had a talk at an important international conference.

Two days before the conference, she learns that her talk was cancelled. Tina asks her

about it; Tina: Were you completely disappointed about the cancellation of your lecture?

Marta: No, not at all. Now I can spend that time watching the conference live on web”

50

33 participants (86.8%) answered wrong while only 5 participants (13.2%) answered

correctly in the pre-test. However, in the post-test, 18 participants (47.4%) answered

wrong while 20 participants (52.6%) answered correctly. As a result, a significant

improvement could be observed for this item.

For the following item “A new student tells Mehtap about Tom. A: I met Tom a

few days ago but everybody seems to know him. Mehtap: Yeah, he’s really popular at

school” none of the participants answered correctly in the pre-test. However, in the post-

test, 15 participants (39.5%) answered wrong while 23 participants (60.5%) answered

correctly. Therefore, there has been a major improvement for this item after the

treatment.

For the next item “Sue and Judy about Karen, one of their colleagues; Sue: I had lunch

with Jane yesterday. She talked about nothing but her problems with her husband during

the entire lunch. Judy: She is really fun to spend time with these days” 24 participants

(63.2%) answered wrong while 14 participants (36.8%) answered correctly in the pre-

test. However, in the post-test, 11 participants (28.9%) answered wrong while 27

participants (71.1%) answered correctly. Depending on this difference between the

results, it could be argued that for this item there has been an improvement in the

participants’ correct answers after the treatment.

Table 4

Frequency Distribution of Second Part of Post-test (N=38)

False True

f % f %

6. Susan and Kelly are interviewing applicants for a job together. Right after one

of the interviews, Susan says; so this was an interesting interview.

What does the speaker think?

How can you tell?

16 42.1 22 57.9

51

12. Maggie, who is a beginner writer, gets her article published in a magazine.

Janet talks about this with a friend;

Janet: Can you believe Maggie got her article published?

Friend: Magazines really have quality jobs these days.

What does the friend think?

How can you tell?

10 26.3 28 73.7

13. Sarah loves watching animal documentaries so much. She is talking to her

roommate, Emma;

Sarah: I hope you don’t mind watching animal documentaries.

Emma: Oh no, not at all. I like watching animals on TV all the time.

What does Emma think?

How can you tell?

22 57.9 16 42.1

14. Cansu is hosting a dinner party for her very close friends in her house.

Tiffany, who wasn’t invited, shows up and says;

Tiffany: Hey, I hope I am not late.

Cansu: Oh no, we were just waiting for you to start the party.

What does Cansu think?

How can you tell?

5 13.2 33 86.8

15. Necla has been in the hospital because of a major surgery for over three weeks

now. Jack sent her flowers.

Zoe: Has Jack come to visit you yet?

Necla: His flowers have.

What does Necla think?

How can you tell?

5 13.2 33 86.8

16. Joanna and Mary talk about a famous actor and his child.

Joanna: The child is actually his, but he denies it.

Mary: Where’d you read that?

Joanna: Oh, it’s all over the Internet!

Mary: Well, if you read it on the Internet, it must be true!

What does Mary think?

How can you tell?

13 34.2 25 65.8

Table 4 Frequency Distribution of Second Part of Post-test (cont’d)

52

When the second part of the post-test, which has 10 more items than the pre-test,

is examined, it could be observed that except items number 13 and 17, the percentage of

the correct answers the participants provided for each item outnumbered the wrong

answers. Compared to the pretest in which all 10 items received more incorrect

responses, the performance of the participants could be remarked as an improvement

after the treatment sessions have been completed. Especially, the items 14, 15, 20 in the

second part of the posttest have received an overwhelming number of correct responses

to identify the intended meaning of the speakers in the given situations.

After the frequency tables of the pre-test and post-test results have been created,

to obtain a statistically correct comparison between these results, and to examine

whether or not there is a statistically significant difference, Wilcoxon signed ranked test

17. April and Rose are talking about their mutual friends.

April: You know, I think Ozan and Meltem might be seeing each other.

Rose: Really? You’re so quick!

What does Rose think?

How can you tell?

22 57.9 16 42.1

18. Linda and Donna are talking about their children’s homework.

Linda: Donna, do your children complain of having too much homework?

Donna: Oh, not at all, Linda. They love it!

What does Donna think?

How can you tell?

18 47.4 20 52.6

19. Lisa and Julie talk about Darren before class.

Lisa: I think Darren’s gonna be late for class. Julie: Oh, that’s a surprise!

What does Julie think?

How can you tell?

10 26.3 28 73.7

20. Pelin is giving Carol a ride for work in the morning.

Pelin: Carol, the car won’t start!

Carol: Oh great, that’s just what we need.

What does Carol think?

How can you tell?

4 10.5 34 89.5

Table 4 Frequency Distribution of Second Part of Post-test (cont’d)

53

was run. Below, descriptive statistics have been provided in the form a table along with

the differences table.

Table 5

Wilcoxon Test Results, Descriptive Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum

Pre-test 38 1.7895 1.63009 .00 7.00

Post-test 38 5.4211 2.80570 .00 10.00

Table 6

Difference between Pre-test & Post-test

N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z Sig.

posttest -

pretest

Negative Ranks 2a 6.25 12.50 4.800 .000

Positive Ranks 31b 17.69 548.50

Ties 5c

Total 38

a. posttest < pretest

b. pretest > pretest

c. posttest = pretest

Mean scores are for the 10 same items used both in pre-test and post-test. For

each item, if a learner has provided the correct answer, the data has been entered into

SPSS as 1, and if the response is incorrect, 0 has been entered. The mean score for the

pre-test is

1.7895, which means that the learners’ overall success for the pre-test is less than 2

correct answers. However, the mean score for the post-test is 5.4211, indicating a

remarkable raise in learners’ overall scores after the treatment.

When Table 5 is examined, it could be seen that there is a statistically significant

difference between the results of the pre-test and post-test results of the learners

(Z=4.800, sig.<0.01). The total scores the learners got from the posttest ( =5.42) after

they received training on the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features are

significantly higher than the total scores the learners got from the pretest ( =1.79).

54

Perceptions about the Treatment Sessions During the Intervention Period

Likert-scale items.The participants have completed an evaluation form after

each session during the intervention period over the course of 10 weeks. The form

consists of two parts; the first one is a 10 item Likert Scale while the second part

consists of one open ended question to get a deeper understanding of learners’ thoughts

on the sessions. The data acquired from the Likert Scale items have been entered into

SPSS and mean scores of each item have been calculated. Stack charts have been created

with the purpose of showing overall learner perception of the treatment sessions, using

the mean scores and the percentages from the Likert Scale analysis. The chart including

each item throughout 10 ten weeks are displayed below in Figure 1;

Figure 1. Evaluation form item 1 results

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Weel 9 Week 10

I learned new things in this sessions.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither disagree or agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

55

Figure 2. Evaluation form item 5 results

Figure 3. Evaluation form item 6 results

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Week

1

Week

2

Week

3

Week

4

Week

5

Week

6

Week

7

Week

8

Week

9

Week

10

I would prefer to have more of sessions like these in the regular

curriculum.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither disagree or agree

Somewhat agree Strongly agree

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10

Some of the things I learned in this session will be very useful to my

in real life

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither disagree or agree

56

Figure 4. Overall assessment of evaluation forms

When the stacked bar charts are examined, it could be observed that the learners

had benefited greatly from the treatment sessions. Overall, they stated that they learned

new things from each session, which they believe helped to improve their pronunciation

in general. Moreover, their replies show that they prefer to have pronunciations sessions

similar to those during the intervention period a lot more in the regular curriculum. The

results in the chart also show that the sessions not only helped with their pronunciation

but also their general English knowledge. The mean scores for the items “the sessions

contributed to my English in general” and “I believe I can use the things I learned in this

session in real life” are fairly high. All in all, the results from the evaluation forms after

each session reflect a respectable contribution to the participants’ English and English

pronunciation.

Open-ended question. In terms of the qualitative data analysis, without

exception, all of the learners in this study indicated that taking part in these treatment

sessions has raised their awareness of suprasegmental features of pronunciation. In

addition to this, a majority of them stated that these sessions helped improve not only

their English pronunciation but also their general English. One of the learners noted, “I

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10

Positive Views Negative Views Tendency

57

can’t believe how much my English is improving session after session!” It could be

concluded from comments like these that learners have become more conscious of their

language learning and have also monitored their own learning throughout the sessions.

Several learners stated that these sessions have raised their perception of

pronunciation in general. The participants reported that the sessions helped them raise

awareness about some technical terms such as stress, pitch, and intonation. A few of the

learners wrote “I didn’t realize there were things like stress, pitch and intonation in

pronunciation, and how they contribute to our speaking.”

Some of the learners acknowledge the fact that they have improved their

conversational skills by acquiring the skills to analyze the speech of others by simply

paying attention to the stress, pitch, and intonation while they speak. Moreover, almost

all the participants in the study found the treatment sessions “fun, interesting, engaging,

and motivating”. They added that since the treatment sessions required active

participation, it made their learning process more permanent, and more “effective than

their regular classes.”

Furthermore, the learners have pointed out the benefits of pair work and group

work during the sessions and how much these contributed to their progress. They have

also highlighted the improvement in their attitudes towards English since the sessions

helped them to view English “more approachable”. Some of the learners remarked that

the sessions helped overcome their stress about learning English and that they have

become “more confident learners.” They also touched upon the importance of self-

correction they have acquired throughout the sessions as well as teacher correction and

peer correction.

All in all, the learners’ comments reflect a broad understanding of pronunciation

and they have gained self- motivation, and a feeling of achievement at the end of the

treatment sessions. With exposure to real life language through the materials used during

the sessions, they report to have an increased awareness in speaking, which they assert

58

to have helped improve their fluency.

Conclusion

In this study, data were collected through a questionnaire, which was conducted

prior to the study, with 52 Turkish ELF learners at the School of Foreign Languages at

Akdeniz University. Descriptive statistics was applied to analyze the first research

question, which was aimed to uncover the learners’ pronunciation awareness. For the

second research question, the data acquired from the results of the pretest conducted

before the treatment sessions and the posttest conducted after the completion of the

treatment was entered into SPSS and Wilcoxon singed ranked test was run to compare

the results between both tests. To find an answer to the final research question, data

collected from 38 out of 52 participants who continued the study from the beginning

until the end, through evaluation forms at the end of each training section was analyzed

both quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative part is consisted of 10 Likert Scale

items, which are displayed in the form of a stacked bar chart, while for the qualitative

part, content analysis was used to code learners’ answers to an open-ended question

about the treatment sessions. The next chapter will present an overview of the study, the

findings and discussion, pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, as well as

suggestions for further research.

59

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

Introduction

The main purpose of this study was to explore the effects of explicit teaching of

English suprasegmentals in a way to assist the comprehension of implicatures by

Turkish EFL learners. To this end, the following research questions were addressed in

this study:

1. What was the learners’ background in and attitudes toward pronunciation before

the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features?

2. To what extent do Turkish EFL learners recognize implicatures in aural texts

before and after the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features?

3. What are the learners’ perceptions about the explicit teaching of suprasegmental

features?

This chapter consists of four main sections. In the first section, the findings and

discussion related to the study are presented by taking into consideration the research

questions and the related literature. In the second section, pedagogical implications are

examined. In the third section, limitations are discussed, and finally in the fourth section,

suggestions for further research are put forward.

Findings and Discussion

Learners’ Background in and Attitudes towards Pronunciation Before the Study

The data obtained from the pronunciation background questionnaire before the

beginning of the study were analyzed with the purpose of identifying the learners’

pronunciation background as well as their attitudes towards it. From the detailed analysis

of the Pronunciation Background and Attitudes Questionnaire (PBAQ) in Chapter 4, it

was seen that the participants of this study have very little background in English

60

pronunciation. None of them had previous pronunciation training, and they had rather

mixed feelings and beliefs about their pronunciation skills. The variation of replies for

attitudes questions demonstrates that learner beliefs and goals for pronunciation were

based solely on feelings rather than on previous experience. It is also worthwhile to note

here that there was a lack of consistency in learner responses for attitude questions. The

results revealed that even though most of the learners considered pronunciation as a vital

element of foreign language, only half of them had positive attitudes towards learning

pronunciation. This might be explained with the fact that in the EFL atmosphere of

Turkey, they are not provided with sufficient communication practice outside the

classroom. Furthermore, it might also mean that their comprehension of the importance

of pronunciation in English did not lead them to develop positive feelings towards it.

The vast majority of the learners stated that they believe they can improve their

English pronunciation. However, results showed that they still did not believe they could

speak English with a good accent. What’s more, the findings indicated a strong desire

from the learners to sound like a native speaker. The tendency to value native speaker

pronunciation contradicts with the discussions in Jenkin’s article, arguing to teach the

learners to sound like a native speaker is no longer the norm or the model in the ELT

world (1998). This finding is in line with the results of Derwing and Munro (2009), who

stated that L2 speakers have been acknowledged to have a foreign accent, especially if

they are adult learners. Turning to pronunciation instruction, the majority of the

participants in the study have been found to favor more instruction in the lessons,

corroborating the suggestion that “pronunciation is learnable” (Derwing & Munro, 2009,

p. 480).

As another major finding, a large number of participants stated that they do not feel

satisfied with the effort they devote on improving their pronunciation. This result might

be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, it could be argued that since the focused

suprasegmental training learners have received during the intervention period is their

61

one and only experience (based on their responses in PBAQ) having explicit instruction

on pronunciation, they might not deliberately focus on improving their pronunciation

before. The findings of Derwing and Rossiter (2002) are in line with this explanation,

arguing that “learners are either not getting instruction or if they are, they are not

benefiting from it” (p. 161). This leads to the second explanation that learners do not feel

confident about their English pronunciation, as put forward by Tejeda, Christina and

Basurto Santos (2014), who asserted that in the case that the learners do not get

sufficient pronunciation practice, their confidence in pronunciation decreases. They have

also indicated that learners receiving pronunciation instruction have become more

confident about their pronunciation (Tejeda et al., 2014).

Regarding the results of the preferred materials for the learners to practice and

improve their pronunciation, videos and audios were listed as one item, and songs were

listed as another item in the PBQ. Surprisingly, there was a great degree of variation in

the responses. Slightly less than half of the participants stated they were not sure about

the effectiveness of videos and audios to improve their pronunciation. About less than

half of them felt videos and audios might help with their pronunciation, and the rest of

the participants stated they did not think videos or audios might be helpful for their

pronunciation improvement. Al Malmun (2014) asserted that both teachers and students

benefit tremendously from the use of audio-visual materials for language improvement

of the learners, including but not limited to pronunciation improvement. Moreover, this

finding also runs counter to the results of McCroklin’s (2012) study, in which it was

discovered that audios and videos support pronunciation improvement of ESL learners.

Considering the findings of previous research mentioned, learners’ abstaining attitudes

towards the use of videos or audios might indicate that either the learners did not resort

to videos or audios to practice and improve their pronunciation before, or that even if

they tried them, they did not achieve successful results, thus leading them to develop a

low value of videos and audios.

62

As compared to videos, singing songs was overwhelmingly chosen as a much-

preferred way of improving pronunciation among the participants of this study. This

finding is supported by a number of studies (e.g. Millington; 2011, Rengifo; 2009).

According to Rengifo (2009), singing songs help learners to “achieve their

pronunciation goals” (p. 91) by creating a fun and relaxed atmosphere. Furthermore,

since songs are much shorter than videos, they might be considered as a more

approachable and relatively easier language practice tool on the part of the low-level

learners. This finding might also mean that the learners did use songs as a way to

practice their English pronunciation before.

In terms of techniques to improve pronunciation, repetition and imitation were

popularly found to be helpful ways among the learners. This preference is in line with

the findings of Trofimovic and Gatbonton (2006), who indicated great benefits of both

on L2 speech, as well as with the findings of Adank, Hagoort and Bekkering (2010),

who have highlighted the positive effects of imitation on improving learners’ spoken

language comprehension. The findings might also be related to previous learning

experiences of the participants in that they might have practiced pronunciation with

repetition and imitation in their former English lessons. However, it should also be noted

that mere repetition and imitation of words or utterances without a meaningful

production might not have a permanent effect on the learners’ pronunciation skills.

Turning to pronunciation terms such as pitch, stress and intonation, it is seen from

the results that a majority of the learners were not familiar with these suprasegmental

features. This finding is not surprising based on the findings of Derwing and Rossiter

(2002) who asserted, “awareness of suprasegmentals is limited” (p. 162), which in return

causes learners to fail “to name suprasegmental factors such as rhythm and stress” (p.

163). Out of these three terms, pitch seemed to be the most familiar to learners according

to the results. The tendency to recognize pitch might be related to the fact that pitch is

basically about the rising and falling of intonation, which might be easily recognized by

63

learners by the highness and lowness of tone in speech.

Given the learners’ replies apprising pitch as an important element in pronunciation,

it could be argued that following patterns of rising and falling of pitch was easier for the

learners rather than following patterns of syllable, word and sentence stress, which is

reflected in the results that learners did not view stress as a vital element in

pronunciation. As a final remark, results demonstrate that a great number of participants

did not consider intonation a crucial element in pronunciation. Derwing and Rossiter

(2002) have indicated the potential neglect suprasegmental features get in the foreign

language classroom. This neglect might easily be the cause that weakens the importance

of intonation in pronunciation in the eyes of the learners. Another explanation for

undervaluing intonation might be associated with the possibility that learners do not

know the definition of intonation. Therefore, they fail to comprehend what is exactly

meant by the importance of intonation in pronunciation.

Learners’ Recognition of Implicatures in Aural Messages before and after the

Explicit Teaching of Suprasegmentals

Regarding the second research question, there was a statistically significant

difference between the leaners’ awareness of suprasegmental features as a way to

understand implicatures before and after the intervention period, which might come to

mean that the explicit pronunciation training was helpful for ELF learners to recognize

implicatures. There are countless studies advocating the explicit teaching of

pronunciation in foreign language classrooms, indicating numerous benefits of

instruction. Derwing and Rossiter (2002) have examined pronunciation difficulties of

learners and have found that explicit instruction is the best way to teach learners

pronunciation. The findings of Tejeda et al. (2014) signify an increase in pronunciation

awareness after explicit pronunciation teaching in the EFL classroom. Additionally,

pronunciation training has been observed to have positive pedagogical outcomes in

64

literature (e.g., Behrman; 2014, Couper; 2003, Derwing, Munro & Wiebe; 1998, Felps,

Bortfeld & Gutierrez-Osuna; 2009). Couper (2003) initiated a pronunciation syllabus in

which both segmental and suprasegmental training were provided for the participants of

his study. The results of his study corroborate the results of the present study in that

pronunciation could and should be taught in foreign language classrooms. Derwing et

al., (1998) also support this argument by recording significant improvements in the

participants of their study as a result of explicit pronunciation instruction. The

improvements mentioned previously are also reflected in the findings of Chun (1988)

who points out that communicative language proficiency of learners could be fostered

by making them realize the key role pronunciation has “in successful and coherent

communication” (p. 301). Additionally, the results of Chun’s (1988) study strongly

suggest the explicit teaching of pronunciation in the foreign language classroom.

In the light of all previously mentioned research, the pre-test scores clearly illustrate

that the participants had a hard time interpreting the situations in the pre-test. The

analysis provided in Chapter 4 shows that the mean score for the pre-test is less than 2,

which indicates that the learners could not analyze and interpret two out of ten situations

in the pre-test correctly. That said, two possible explanations for the reasons behind this

seem plausible. It could be argued that the learners could not interpret the situations

because they did not understand what was asked of them. Or, it could be that their lack

of suprasegmental knowledge prevented them from interpreting the situations in a

correct way. However, in either case, it seems that the learners did not or could not

associate the suprasegmentals as a way to decode implicatures.

In the analysis of scores of the post-test, it was found that the learners achieved

much higher scores when compared with their pre-test scores. The mean score for the

post-test is more than 5, which demonstrate that out of 10 items that existed both in the

pre-test and the post-test, the learners were able to answer slightly more than half of the

65

questions correctly. This significant difference between the results of pre-test and the

post-test could possibly be explained with the effectiveness of the explicit

suprasegmental training the learners received during the intervention period. Results also

confirm relevant literature that places emphasis on the importance of suprasegmental

features in pronunciation. Suwartano (2014) reiterates the findings in research by

suggesting that improvement in suprasegmentals results in improvement in

communication. Similarly, Zarifi and Sayyadi (2015) touched upon suprasegmentals’

critical role in discourse, adding further that if they are omitted or disregarded in

language classrooms, communication breakdowns could occur because of the change in

meaning in the utterance. Therefore, the findings that the participants’ post-test scores

are significantly higher than their pre-test scores in the present study could provide

convincing evidence that learning suprasegmentals assisted learners in their

comprehension and interpretation of oral messages, and the hidden meaning implied in

those messages. Additionally, not especially for implicatures, but for discourse in

general Chun (1988) states “both communicative competence and proficiency models

should include the ability to use intonation as one of the tools to engage in and manage

discourse.” (p. 301)

In addition to the explicit suprasegmental training, a number of other factors might

have contributed to the learners’ progress in the post-test. During the training sessions,

the learners followed a pattern of instruction, practice and feedback. After the

presentation of the topic of each session, the learners were provided a chance to practice

what they learned with their partners and they sometimes got involved in group practice,

as well. Following the practice time, the learners were provided feedback mainly by the

researcher, and sometimes even by their peers. Neri, Cucchiarini and Strik’s (2008)

findings support the importance of feedback during the pronunciation training.

Considering input, practice and feedback were included exclusively during the explicit

suprasegmental training in this study, it might be argued that combined together with the

66

treatment sessions, they contributed immensely to the learners’ success in the post-test

after the completion of the study.

Learners’ Perceptions about the Treatment Sessions

The findings obtained from the final research question inquiring about the

learners’ perception about the treatment sessions during the intervention period revealed

that the learners benefitted greatly from the explicit teaching of suprasegmental features

to foster the comprehension of implicatures in the 10-week intervention period. The

majority of the participants reported recognizable improvements in their pronunciation,

and in their recognition of implied meanings in oral messages following prosodic cues

they learned during the training. This is reflected both in the Likert Scale analysis, and in

the content analysis of the open-ended question in the evaluation form. The

improvements the learners reported having could be broken into such categories as

increased awareness of English pronunciation, suprasegmental awareness, improvement

in perceptions of their speaking skills, and lastly the fun factor. In terms of increased

awareness of English pronunciation, it seems that the learners became more conscious of

their learning process and took responsibility to self-observe their progress as the

sessions continued. This could be attributed to the explicit nature of teaching during the

intervention period. It seems to have provided the learners with a solid platform on

which they could identify what they did not know and what they needed to know in

English pronunciation as a way to recognize and comprehend the intended meanings in

speech. In terms of suprasegmental awareness, it seems that the training sessions guided

the learners in understanding what stress, pitch, and intonation mean, as well as their

crucial role in communication. Regarding the improvements in their perceptions of

speaking skills, the learners reported, with the help of the training sessions, they

acquired the ability to interpret the speech of other people by concentrating on

suprasegmental features such as stress, pitch and intonation. As another major speaking

67

contribution, the increase in their perception of their fluency was also mentioned.

Finally, the fun factor comes from the fact the sessions were found extremely enjoyable,

interesting and appealing by the learners. This could not only be construed as a

legitimate indicator of the effectiveness of the training, but it could also explain why the

learners believed their learning process became more permanent throughout the

intervention period. It is also interesting to note here that even though the learners did

not favor videos as a great source of practice and improvement for their pronunciation in

the PBAQ in the beginning of the study, their evaluation of the use of videos seemed to

have changed as the treatment sessions progressed. The learners’ responses in the open-

ended question in the evaluation form reflect the contribution of videos to their

pronunciation improvement and comprehension of implicatures. Derakhshan et al.

(2014) suggest that “authentic audiovisual and video enhanced materials and the role of

instruction” (p. 18) are causes of improvement in learning implicatures. Furthermore, the

learners also had a chance to practice the content of the videos after watching, paying

particular attention to the suprasegmental feature of that day’s session. All learners

reported that approaching the session materials this way helped them change their ideas

about videos and audios from neutral to positive, and helped them to view the authentic

audio-visual materials as “less daunting”. This change in the learners’ attitudes resulted

in their replies that English became “more approachable” for them. It is possible that due

to the lack of pronunciation training in the learners’ previous language learning

experience (reflected in the results of PBQ), these learners could not figure out how to

learn pronunciation or rather how to approach it before. That aside, even though the

learners did receive pronunciation training, it is possible the training they receive might

not be fully satisfying considering the fact that not only in Turkey EFL arena, but in

general EFL arena worldwide, pronunciation does not come out as a popular foreign

language education area (Derwing & Rossiter; 2002). Adding to that, Hsieh, Dong, and

Wang (2013) refer to the challenges the existing pronunciation training techniques have

68

and call for a need for new and improvised techniques to enable the acquisition of

pronunciation. Focused suprasegmental training through the use of authentic materials

and providing practice and feedback time for learners appeared to have been helpful

considering the findings in the present study. Furthermore, the learners reported

developing more and more positive attitudes towards both pronunciation specifically and

English in general throughout the intervention period. According to findings of Derwing

and Rossiter (2002) “awareness of suprasegmentals, especially in the absence of

instruction, is limited.” (p. 162) Therefore, it might not be surprising that once the

learners are exposed to suprasegmentals, their awareness will increase and this might

naturally lead to positive attitudes towards pronunciation.

Another factor to take into consideration is that the results suggest the learners

found the pair work and the group work highly valuable and helpful during the training.

This might come to mean that because the learners knew the treatment sessions were in

no way associated with stressing out for getting good marks in the regular program, they

might have felt less pressure and dedicated to the activities just for learning. Baran-

Łucarz’s (2014) findings are in line with the previously mentioned statement. According

to the results of her study, which explore the link between pronunciation anxiety and

willingness to communicate in foreign language classroom, some learners view the

language classroom as a place where “they are being constantly evaluated” and thus they

might be scared of “losing face” (p. 464). The participants’ of the current study reported

feeling relaxed and having fun during the treatment sessions. This might be due to the

fact that they have gone through no assessment during the treatment period. However,

there was self-evaluation and self-assessment. Most learners reported they have gained

the skill to monitor themselves and recorded a self- track record on their pronunciation

progress. Their comments indicate that it was highly satisfying for them to observe their

self-improvement as the sessions continue. The learners even stated that they have

evaluated the pre-test conducted before the intervention period and the post-test

69

conducted after the intervention period as a way of self-assessment and reflected on their

performance comparing how they felt during the pre-test and how they felt during the

post-test. As suggested by Baran-Łucarz (2014), the participants of the current study

seem to have reduced their “negative self-image, and fear of embarrassing themselves in

front of their classmates” which causes “anxiety and a lack of L2 confidence, which, in

turn, can result in a strong reluctance to speak in an FL” (p. 464). Therefore, the findings

of the present study, indicating a great improvement in the learners’ speaking and

communicational skills are in line with the previously mentioned results.

Pedagogical Implications

The findings of the current study suggest clear pedagogical implications. The

study shows that explicit suprasegmental training could be considered as an effective

tool in EFL learning in terms of providing learners with a solid background on

pronunciation, and more opportunities to practice their communicational skills, as well

as helping with their understanding and interpreting of implicatures, which are

considered as difficult to learn for foreign language learners. Moreover, it was found that

almost all of the EFL learners in the present study had developed positive attitudes

towards pronunciation and using it to recognize oral discourse. In the light of these

findings, it could be suggested that pronunciation should be included more in the EFL

curriculum, not merely in the form of segmental training, which is usually the case but in

the form of suprasegmental training as well. Furthermore, different aspects of

pronunciation should be introduced to the learners; comprehensibility, intelligibility, and

as a way to comprehend implied meanings in messages, etc. Suprasegmentals enrich oral

communication. As a result, learners should be more aware of their role in

communication and communication breakdowns. Awareness of suprasegmentals is as

important as their instruction. In this regard, the suprasegmental training might start with

the introduction of what suprasegmentals are and how they contribute to speaking in

70

English. Implicatures also hold an important place in foreign language since they play a

crucial role in communication. Therefore, implicatures awareness should also be

included in the future training programs. Another important aspect is that the training

could also be used as a fun way to enrich the classroom atmosphere since the results of

the current study indicate all the participants found the

suprasegmental training “fun” and the content “engaging”.

While the benefits of teaching pronunciation is widely accepted and strongly

supported by research today, there is a crucial issue that emerges in foreign language

teaching scenes around the world, which needs addressing promptly; the qualifications

(or under qualifications) of EFL/ESL teachers to teach pronunciation. According to

Breitkreutz, Derwing, and Rossiter (2001), “many teachers are uncomfortable dealing

with pronunciation” (p. 52) as a result of not getting any training to teach pronunciation,

besides having “no linguistic training in phonetics and phonology” (p. 52). Derwing and

Munro (2005) noted many teachers are unwilling to teach pronunciation. Derwing and

Rossiter (2002) found that 67% of the teacher participants who took part in their study

reported they have had no former training in teaching pronunciation. MacDonald (2002)

added to aforementioned issues by stressing “the absence of pronunciation in curricula”

(p. 3) as well as a lack of appropriate teaching materials. Added to the previously

mentioned problems are the question of what to include in a pronunciation course, and

the debate about how it should be taught, as put forward by Suwartono (2014).

Stemming from all relevant research, the present study aimed to provide an alternative

pronunciation-teaching platform added to the regular curriculum of Akdeniz Univerity

School of Foreign Languages, where pronunciation is neither the focus of instruction nor

acknowledged as a crucial element in foreign language education. The fact that results of

the current study demonstrate a statistically significant difference between before the

pronunciation training and after the training could be interpreted as meaning that the

explicit teaching of suprasegmentals contributed remarkably to the participants’

71

comprehension of implicatures in oral messages. Levis and Pickering (2004) supports

this final statement by suggesting that in the case that the teachers comprehend the

gravity of intonation in discourse, they could better guide their learners to understand the

role of intonation in real communication and use it for their “real communicative needs”

(p. 520).

Limitations

The study revealed that explicit suprasegmental training has been very effective

on Turkish ELF learners’ comprehension of implicatures in aural messages. However, as

a nature of studies similar to this, time still remained as a constraint in the current study.

The length of the intervention period was only 10 weeks in a 58-week academic year at

Akdeniz University School of Foreign Languages. The learners, without doubt, would

have benefitted a lot more from a yearlong training. Consequently, the time limitation

resulted in the loopholes in the acquisition of the contents in the treatment sessions.

Another limitation is the absence of a delayed post-test. The intervention period took

part in the fall semester before the winter break. After a three-week winter break, the

students were assigned to different classrooms at Akdeniz University School of Foreign

Languages, thus making the process of arranging a time that suits all participants

difficult. Additionally, some learners who took part in the study dropped out of school.

Therefore, they were out of reach of the researcher. Another limitation of the study that

needs addressing is related to the third research question about the perception of the

learners about the treatment sessions. In order to collect data for this question, a Likert

Scale with 10 items has been created by the researcher, with an open ended question at

the end, inquiring about the participants’ additional thoughts and comments about the

treatment sessions. Although each participant completed the “other comments” section

each week, with their own ideas, the data acquired were not rich enough to emerge into

various themes to be coded and thus did not reveal deeper insights into the participants’

72

perceptions about the treatment sessions. Interviews, instead of an open-ended question,

might have served better to the purpose of obtaining high-quality qualitative data.

Suggestions for Further Research

A number of questions have emerged from the findings that might hopefully lead

to further research in the field. Firstly, the current study focused on what effect explicit

teaching of suprasegmentals would have on the EFL learners’ comprehension of

implicatures in aural messages. Future studies could take this a step further and analyze

the effects of implicit teaching of suprasegmetals on the learners’ comprehension of

implicatures as a comparison between the two teaching styles. In other words, research

could consider whether or not explicit teaching has remarkable advantages over implicit

teaching on both the acquisition of suprasegmentals, and the comprehension of

implicatures or vice versa. Additionally, a longitudinal study might be planned to

explore the role and effects of duration on the suprasegmental training. Therefore, the

length of time still remains to be a question in the present study. Possibly, it might not

affect the statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores in a

negative manner. However, it might have an impact on the permanence of learning on

the part of the learners. More research is also needed on the perception of both the

learners and the classroom teachers about pronunciation in general, and suprasegmentals

specifically, since in the current study only the learners’ perceptions have been analyzed.

Conclusion

The present study investigated the effects of explicit teaching of English

suprasegmentals in a way to assist the comprehension of implicatures by Turkish EFL

learners. With that aim, 36 learners studying at the School of Foreign Languages at

Akdeniz University took part in the study. Ten explicit suprasegmental training sessions

over a ten-week treatment process were conducted with a single group. According to

results, there are statistically significant findings demonstrating that receiving training

73

on suprasegmentals contributed positively EFL learners’ comprehension and

interpretation of implicatures in aural messages. With the help of explicit teaching

sessions, the learners in this study were able to improve their ability to identify the

intended meanings in oral messages, and comprehend them remarkably better than

before they received any kinds of suprasegmental training. The findings of the present

study suggest that the suprasegmental features taught in the treatment process helped the

learners recognize the prosodic cues in the speech of others, and use them to decode

discourse.

74

REFERENCES

Adank, P., Hagoort, P., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Imitation improves language

comprehension. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1903-1909.

Al Mamun, M. (2014). Effectiveness of audio-visual aids in language teaching in

tertiary level (Doctoral dissertation). BRAC University, Mohakhali, Bangladesh.

Alagözlü, N. (2013). Aural pragma-linguistic comprehension: A longitudinal study.

Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44,1-14.

Alagözlü, N., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2009). Aural pragmatic comprehension. Novitas-

Royal, 3(2),83-92.

Albright, L., Cohen, A. I., Malloy, T. E., Christ, T., & Bromgard, G. (2004). Judgments

of communicative intent in conversation. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 40(3), 290-302.

Avery, P. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Bahrani, T., & Sim, T. S. (2012). Audiovisual news, cartoons, and films as sources of

authentic language input and language proficiency enhancement. TOJET: The

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 56-64.

Bänziger, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2005). The role of intonation in emotional expressions.

Speech Communication, 46(3), 252-267.

Baran-Łucarz, M. (2014). The link between pronunciation anxiety and willingness to

communicate in the foreign-language classroom: The Polish EFL context.

Canadian Modern Language Review, 70(4), 445-473.

75

Behrman, A. (2014). Segmental and prosodic approaches to accent management.

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23(4), 546-561.

Bouton, L. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come

automatically without being explicitly taught? In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.),

Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series Vol. 3, pp. 53-65). Urbana-

Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University of

Illinois.

Bouton, L. (1994a). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicatures in American English be

improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. Bouton & Y. Kachru

(Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Monograph Series Vol. 5, pp. 88-109).

Urbana-Champaign: Division of English as an International Language, University

of Illinois.

Bouton, L. (1994b). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly

when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(2), 157-167.

Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross‐cultural study of ability to interpret implicatures in

English. World Englishes, 7(2), 183-196.

Boyer, S. (2002). Understanding English pronunciation: An integrated practice course.

Glenbrook, UK: Boyer Educational Resources.

Braun, B., Lemhöfer, K., & Mani, N. (2011). Perceiving unstressed vowels in foreign-

accented English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(1), 376-

387.

Breitkreutz, J., Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2001). Pronunciation teaching

practices in Canada. TESL Canada Journal, 19(1), 51-61.

Broersma, D. (1994). Do chickens have lips? Conversational implicature in the ESL

76

classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference

on Pragmatics and Language Learning, Urbana, IL.

Cakir, I. (2006). The use of video as an audio-visual material in foreign language

teaching classroom. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology, 5(4),67-72.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., & Goodwin, J. M. (2008). Teaching pronunciation:

A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., & Goodwin, J. M. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A

course book and reference guide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, H. C. (2013). Chinese learners’ acquisition of English word stress and factors

affecting stress assignment. Linguistics and Education, 24(4), 545-555.

Chun, D. M. (1988). The neglected role of intonation in communicative competence

and proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 295-303.

Chun, D. M. (2002). Discourse intonation in L2: from theory and research to practice.

Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.

Clennell, C. (1997). Raising the pedagogic status of discourse intonation teaching. ELT

Journal, 51(2), 117-125.

Collins, B., & Mees, I. (2003). The phonetics of English and Dutch. Leiden, NL: Brill.

Couper, G. (2003). The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching.

Prospect, 18(3), 53-70.

Crosby, C. F. (2013). L1 influence on L2 intonation in Russian speakers of English

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

77

Crystal, D. (2011). Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford, UK.: Blackwell.

Cutler, A., Dahan, D., & Van Donselaar, W. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of

spoken language: A literature review. Language and Sspeech, 40(2), 141-201.

Daniel, I. O. (2011). Introductory phonetics and phonology of English. Newcastle, UK:

Cambridge Scholars.

Davis, W. A. (2016). Irregular negatives, implicatures, and idioms. Dordrecht, NL:

Springer.

de Saint Léger, D., & Storch, N. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes:

Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37(2),

269-285.

Demirezen, M. (1986). Phonemics and phonology: Theory through analysis. Ankara,

TR: Bizim Buro Basimevi.

Derakhshan, A., Mohsenzadeh, H., & Mohammadzadeh, S. (2014). The nuts and bolts

of teaching implicatures in EFL/ESL contexts: An overview on the role of video-

enhanced input. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English

Literature, 3(5), 13-21.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation

teaching: a research‐based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 379-397.

Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking

obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476-490.

Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2002). ESL learners' perceptions of their

pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30(2), 155-166.

Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Wiebe, G. (1998). Evidence in favor of a broad

78

framework for pronunciation instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393-410.

Felps, D., Bortfeld, H., & Gutierrez-Osuna, R. (2009). Foreign accent conversion in

computer assisted pronunciation training. Speech Communication, 51(10), 920-

932.

Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL

Quarterly, 39(3), 399.

Frumuselu, A. D., De Maeyer, S., Donche, V., & Plana, M. D. M. G. C. (2015).

Television series inside the EFL classroom: Bridging the gap between teaching

and learning informal language through subtitles. Linguistics and Education, 32,

107-117.

Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1999). Interpreting what speakers say and implicate. Brain and

Language, 68(3), 466-485.

Gilbert, J. (1987). Pronunciation and listening comprehension. In J. Morley (Ed.),

Current perspectives on pronunciation (pp. 29-40). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of

discourse. Computational linguistics, 12(3), 175-204.

Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hewings, M. (2013). English pronunciation in use: advanced. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Hsieh, K. T., Dong, D. H., & Wang, L. Y. (2013). A preliminary study of applying

shadowing technique to English intonation instruction. Taiwan Journal of

Linguistics, 11(2), 43-65.

Jahangiri, G., & Sardareh, S. A. (2015). Investigating EFL students' attitudes toward

79

using computer assisted pronunciation teaching. International Journal of

Humanities and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 1700-1712.

Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an

international language? ELT Journal, 52(2), 119-126.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford,

UK.: Oxford University Press.

Kang, O. (2010). ESL learners’ attitudes toward pronunciation instruction and varieties

of English. Proceedings of the 1st Pronunciation in Second Language Learning

and Teaching Conference. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Karttunen, L. (1969). Discourse referents. Proceedings of the International Conference

on Computational Linguistics COLING 70 (pp. 1–37). Stockholm, SE: Research

Group for Quantitative Linguistics.

Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation (Longman handbooks for

language teachers). London, UK: Pearson.

Kissling, E. M. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction

beneficial for FL learners? The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 720-744.

Kreidler, C. W. (2004). The pronunciation of English: A course book. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL

learners. IRLT (Institute for Research in Language Teaching) Bulletin, 9, 35-67.

Kurt, G. (2014). The perception of prosodically ambiguous intonation patterns by L2

english learners and the effects of instruction. Proceedings of the International

Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech Concordia Working

80

Papers in Applied Linguistics (pp. 353-372). Montreal, Canada: Concordia

University.

Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2014). A course in phonetics. Boston: Wadsworth

Publishing.

Lass, R. (1984). Phonology: An introduction to basic concepts. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice,

2(12), 59-67.

Levis, J. (2007). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 184-202.

Levis, J. M., & Grant, L. (2003). Integrating pronunciation into ESL/EFL classrooms.

TESOL Journal, 12(2), 13-19.

Levis, J., & Pickering, L. (2004). Teaching intonation in discourse using speech

visualization technology. System, 32(4), 505-524.

Linebaugh, G., & Roche, T. (2013). Learning to hear by learning to speak. Australian

Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 146-159.

Lodge, K. (2009). Fundamental concepts in Phonology sameness and difference.

Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

MacDonald, S. (2002). Pronunciation-views and practices of reluctant teachers.

Prospect, 17(3), 3-18.

Mathew, N. G., & Alidmat, A. O. H. (2013). A study on the usefulness of audio-visual

aids in EFL classroom: Implications for effective instruction. International

Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 86-92.

81

Matsuoka, Y. (2009). Possible strategies for listening comprehension: Applying the

concepts of conversational implicature and adjacency pairs to understand speaker

intention in the TOEFL listening section. Accents Asia, 3(2), 27-56.

McCrocklin, S. (2012). Effect of audio vs. video on aural discrimination of vowels.

TESL-EJ, 16(2),1-16.

McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT. Chichester, UK:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Mennen, I. (2007). Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native Intonation. In J.

Trouvain, & U. Gut (Eds.), Non-native prosody: Phonetic descriptions and

teaching practice (pp 53-76). Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.

Mennen, I. (2015). Beyond segments: Towards a L2 intonation learning theory. In

Prosody and language in contact (pp. 171-188). Berlin, DE: Springer.

Millington, N. T. (2011). Using songs effectively to teach English to young learners.

Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 134-141.

Missaglia, F. (1999, August). Contrastive prosody in SLA: An empirical study with

adult Italian learners of German. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress

of Phonetic Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 551-554). San Francisco, CA.

Mora, R. A. (2006). A critical look at the discourse of popular television: The case of

“Friends”. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, San Francisco.

Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of

other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520.

Moyer, A. (2007). Empirical considerations on the age factor in L2 Phonology. Issues

82

in Applied Linguistics, 15(2),109-127.

Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (2006). The functional load principle in ESL

pronunciation instruction: An exploratory study. System, 34(4), 520-531.

Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based

speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch. ReCALL,

20(2), 225-243.

Olson, D. J. (2014). Benefits of visual feedback on segmental production in the L2

classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 173-192.

O'neal, G. (2010). The effects of the presence and absence of suprasegmentals on the

intelligibility and assessment of an expanding-circle English speaker according to

other expanding-circle English listeners. 新潟大学言語文化研究, 15, 65-87.

Ortaçtepe, D. (2013). Formulaic language and conceptual socialization: The route to

becoming nativelike in L2. System, 41(3), 852-865.

Ortaçtepe, D. (2015). EFL Teachers’ identity (re) construction as teachers of

intercultural competence: A language socialization approach. Journal of

Language, Identity & Education, 14(2), 96-112.

Ortega-Llebaria, M., & Colantoni, L. (2014). L2 English intonation: Relations between

form-meaning associations, access to meaning, and L1 transfer. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 36(2), 331-353.

Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. B. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in

the interpretation of discourse. In P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, M. E. Pollack (Eds.),

Intentions in Communication (pp. 271-311). Cambridge, MA.

Plag, I., Kunter, G., & Schramm, M. (2011). Acoustic correlates of primary and

83

secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics, 39(3), 362-374.

Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Rajadurai, J. (2001). An investigation of the effectiveness of teaching pronunciation to

Malaysian TESL students. Forum, 39(3), 10-15.

Recanati, F. (2001). What is said. Synthese, 128(1), 75-91.

Rengifo, A. R. (2009). Improving pronunciation through the use of karaoke in an adult

English class. Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11, 91-106.

Rızaoğlu, F., & Yavuz, M. A. (2017). İngilizce oğrenenlerin sezdirileri anlama ve

üretme becerileri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(4), 817-

837.

Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis

of 15 quasi‐experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842-854.

Sallert, H. (2016). Using a television series to facilitate advanced learners' vocabulary

learning: (Master’s thesis). University of Tartu, Tartu.

Şanal, M. (2016). Conceptual socialization in EFL contexts: a case study on Turkish

EFL learners‟ request speech acts realization (Doctoral dissertation). Bilkent

University, Ankara.

Scovel, T. (1969). Foreign accents, language acquisition, and cerebral dominance.

Language Learning, 19(3), 245-253.

Steedman, M. (2002). The surface-compositional semantics of English intonation.

Language, 90(1), 2-57.

Steedman, M. (2002). Towards a compositional semantics for English intonation

84

(Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst,

Massachusetts.

Suwartono, S. (2014). Enhancing the pronunciation of English suprasegmental features

through reflective learning method. TEFLIN Journal, 25(1), 80-93.

Suwartono, S., & Rafli, Z. (2015). Enhancing the pronunciation of English

suprasegmental features through reflective learning method. International Journal

of Language Education and Culture Review, 1(1), 87-96.

Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language.

The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562.

Taguchi, N. (2008). The effect of working memory, semantic access, and listening

abilities on the comprehension of conversational implicatures in L2 English.

Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(3), 517-539.

Tanner, J. D. (2012). Factors affecting the acquisition of pronunciation: Culture,

motivation, and level of instruction (Master’s thesis). Brigham Young University,

Provo, Utah.

Tejeda, T., Cristina, A., & Basurto Santos, N. M. (2014). Pronunciation instruction and

students' practice to develop their confidence in EFL oral skills. Profile Issues in

Teachers’ Professional Development, 16(2), 151-170.

Trofimovich, P., & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals:

Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(01), 1-30.

Trofimovich, P., & Gatbonton, E. (2006). Repetition and focus on form in processing

L2 Spanish words: Implications for pronunciation instruction. Modern Language

Journal, 90 (4), 519-535.

85

Tsurutani, C. (2011). L2 Intonation: A study of L1 transfer in Japanese intonation by

English-speaking learners. Second Language, 10, 79-102.

Valenzuela, F. M. G. (2013). A comparative analysis of intonation between Spanish

and English speakers in tag questions, wh-questions, inverted questions, and

repetition questions. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada, 13(4), 1061-1083.

Vigário, M. C., Frota, S., & Freitas, M. J. (2009). Phonetics and phonology:

Interactions and interrelations. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.

Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wennerstrom, A. (1994). Intonational meaning in English discourse: A study of non-

native speakers. Applied Linguistics, 15(4), 399-420.

Xiaoyao, Z. H. A. N. G. (2010). The acquisition of English word stress patterns by

Mandarin EFL learners in formal instruction environment (Unpublished doctoral

thesis). The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Zarifi, A., & Sayyadi, A. (2015). How English suprasegmental features of

pronunciation are viewed and treated by instructors in Iranian private language

centers. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(6), 1166-1172

86

APPENDIX A

English Pronunciation Background and Attitudes Questionnaire

Dear Student,

This is a questionnaire designed to assess your familiarity with English

pronunciation. Some of the questions below are open-ended, which require your

genuine answer and some of them are sentences, which require you to circle a

number based on your feelings. Thank you for your cooperation.

Name:

Age:

First Language: Languages Spoken (Other than English):

Email: Phone:

87

A. General:

1. At what age did you start learning English?

………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Have you ever lived in an English speaking country before? (Please give details;

which country, for how long, for what purposes, etc.)

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

………

3. Have you had any courses focusing on pronunciation? If yes, what were they like?

(What aspects of pronunciation did the course focus on? E.g. sounds, connected

speech, mouth articulation, stress, intonation, etc.)

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………

………

88

B. Pronunciation Perception/ Materials, Methods Used

Please answer the questions using the numbers below, circle the number that fits your

feelings best:

5 = Strongly agree 4 = Somewhat agree 3 = Neither disagree or agree 2 = Somewhat

disagree 1 = Strongly disagree

1. Good pronunciation in English is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I would like to sound like a native English speaker when I

speak English.

1 2 3 4 5

3. I consider pronunciation a key aspect for communication. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I like learning English pronunciation. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I believe I can improve my pronunciation skills in English

(with help or on my own).

1 2 3 4 5

6. I believe I will able to speak English with a good accent. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Pronunciation should be taught more in lessons. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I try to imitate native speakers of English as much as

possible.

1 2 3 4 5

9. I am satisfied with my pronunciation in English. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I am satisfied with the effort I devote to improve my

pronunciation.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I think English videos and audios can help me learn

English pronunciation.

1 2 3 4 5

12. I think that singing songs in English can improve my

pronunciation.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I think that repetition and imitation are helpful ways to

learn pronunciation.

1 2 3 4 5

89

14. How often do you pay attention to rising and falling pitch in your pronunciation?

1. Not familiar with the term

2. Rarely

3. Sometimes

4. Quite often

5. Always

15. How often do you pay attention to word and sentence stress in your

pronunciation?

1. Not familiar with the term

2. Rarely

3. Sometimes

4. Quite often

5. Always

16. How important is intonation for pronunciation?

1. Not familiar with the term

2. Not so important

3. Somewhat important

4. Important

5. Very important

C. Open-ended Question

Please answer the question below including as many details as possible.

17. What do you do to try to improve your pronunciation?

90

APPENDIX B

IMPLICATURE RECOGNITION TEST

Name:

Student Number:

*Read the situations and listen to recordings. What does the speaker really

think about the situation? What clues helped you understand the situations?

1.A wife says to her husband “I just love it when you help me in the kitchen.”

What does the speaker think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

2. Mary shows Angela her new haircut, and asks her opinion about it. Mary replies

“it looks great!”

What does the speaker think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

3.John left Jenny his dog, and asks how she got along with the dog.

She replies “We were so happy to have her”

What does the speaker think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

91

4. David and Karen are talking about David’s cough, which he’s had for two weeks

now. She says, “The weather is getting warmer now so perhaps your cough will go

away.”

What does the speaker think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Amanda is always busy at work because her boss gives her lots of work. Her

colleagues ask her how she feels about it. She says; it’s because she likes me better

than everybody else.

What does the speaker think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

6. Susan and Kelly are interviewing applicants for a job together. Right after one of

the interviews, Susan says; so this was an interesting interview.

What does the speaker think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

7. Sanem’s child knocked over a vase and broke it. Sanem asks Dorothy:

Sanem: Oh was that an important vase?

Dorothy: No, not at all.

What does Dorothy think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

92

8. Berna has just listened to an announcement at the airport. She speaks with the

person sitting next to her;

Berna: Our flight is delayed?

Passanger: Waiting at the airport is surely a lot of fun.

What does the passanger think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

9. Marta had a talk at an important international conference. Two days before the

conference, she learns that her talk was cancelled. Tina asks her about it;

Tina: Were you completely disappointed about the cancellation of your lecture?

Marta: No, not at all. Now I can spend that time watching the conference live on web.

What does Martha think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

10. A new student tells Mehtap about Tom.

A: I met Tom a few days ago but everybody seems to know him.

Mehtap: Yeah, he’s really popular at school.

What does Mehtap think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Sue and Judy about Karen, one of their colleagues;

Sue: I had lunch with Jane yesterday. She talked about nothing but her problems with

her husband during the entire lunch.

Judy: She is really fun to spend time with these days.

93

What does Judy think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

12. Maggie, who is a beginner writer, gets her article published in a magazine.

Janet talks about this with a friend;

Janet: Can you believe Maggie got her article published?

Friend: Magazines really have quality jobs these days.

What does the friend think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

13. Sarah loves watching animal documentaries so much. She is talking to her

roommate, Emma;

Sarah: I hope you don’t mind watching animal documentaries.

Emma: Oh no, not at all. I like watching animals on TV all the time.

What does Emma think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

14. Cansu is hosting a dinner party for her very close friends in her house. Tiffany,

who wasn’t invited, shows up and says;

Tiffany: Hey, I hope I am not late.

Cansu: Oh no, we were just waiting for you to start the party.

What does Cansu think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

94

……………………………………………………………………………………………

15. Necla has been in the hospital because of a major surgery for over three weeks

now. Jack sent her flowers.

Zoe: Has Jack come to visit you yet? Necla: His flowers have.

What does Necla think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

16. Joanna and Mary talk about a famous actor and his child.

Joanna: The child is actually his, but he denies it.

Mary: Where’d you read that?

Joanna: Oh, it’s all over the Internet!

Mary: Well, if you read it on the Internet, it must be true!

What does Mary think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

17. April and Rose are talking about their mutual friends.

April: You know, I think Ozan and Meltem might be seeing each other.

Rose: Really? You’re so quick!

What does Rose think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

18. Linda and Donna are talking about their children’s homework.

Linda: Donna, do your children complain of having too much homework?

Donna: Oh, not at all, Linda. They love it!

95

What does Donna think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

19. Lisa and Julie talk about Darren before class.

Lisa: I think Darren’s gonna be late for class. Julie: Oh, that’s a surprise!

What does Julie think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

20. Pelin is giving Carol a ride for work in the morning.

Pelin: Carol, the car won’t start!

Carol: Oh great, that’s just what we need.

What does Carol think?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

How can you tell?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

96

APPENDIX C

Training Session 6, Practice Worksheet

Friends, Season 1, Episode 24

Monica: Uh, so, uh, Rach, uh... do you wanna save this wrapping paper, I mean, it's

only a little bit torn... so are you gonna go for it with Ross or should I just throw it out?

Rachel: I don't know. I don't know... I thought about it all the way there, and I thought

about it all the way back... and, uh, oh, you guys, y'know, it's Ross. Y'know what I

mean? I mean, it's Ross.

Monica and Phoebe: Sure.

Rachel: I don't know, I mean, this is just my initial gut feeling... but I'm thinking... oh,

I'm thinking it'd be really great.

Monica: Oh my God, me too! Oh! Oh, we'd be like friends-in-law! Y'know what the

best part is? The best part is that you already know everything about him! I mean, it's

like starting on the fifteenth date!

Phoebe: Yeah, but, y'know, it's... it would be like starting on the fifteenth date.

Monica: Another good point.

Phoebe: No, I mean, I mean, when you're at the fifteenth date, y'know, you're already in

a very relationshippy place. Y'know, it's... you're committed.

Rachel: (confused) Huh?

Phoebe: Well, I mean, then what happens if it doesn't work out?

Monica: Why isn't it working out?

Rachel: I don't know... sometimes it doesn't.

97

APPENDIX D

Evaluation Form

....12.2016

1:Kesinlikle katılmıyorum 2:Katılmıyorum 3:Nötrüm.

4:Katılıyorum 5:Kesinlikle katılıyorum

1.Bu seanstan yeni bir şeyler öğrendim. 1 2 3 4 5

2.Seansta öğrendiklerim telaffuzuma katkı sağladı. 1 2 3 4 5

3.Seans benim için zordu. 1 2 3 4 5

4.Bu seansta yeni hiçbir şey öğrenmedim. 1 2 3 4 5

5.Bu seans gibi seansların ders programında daha çok olmasını

isterim.

1 2 3 4 5

6.Seansta öğrendiğim bazı şeyler gerçek hayatta çok işime

yarayacak.

1 2 3 4 5

7.Seanstaki bazı şeylerin İngilizceme katkısı azdı. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Seansta yeni kelimeler öğrendim. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Seansta izlediğim videoların İngilizceme katkı sağladığını

düşünüyorum.

1 2 3 4 5

10. Seansta partnerimle yaptığım çalışmanın (canlandırma)

İngilizce telaffuzuma katkı sağladığını düşünüyorum.

1 2 3 4 5

Diğer yorumlar:

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________